Re: Excessive drinking message dated "Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:15:40 -0500."
""Edward Lopez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > In a Forbes article last year, a professor of health at Indiana University no > tes that since the increase in the legal drinking age to 21 (1987), total amo > unt of alcohol consumed dropped but the incidence of EXCESSIVE drinking incre > ased among 18-20 year olds. > > 1. any takers on why? Excessive drinkers are an annoying but small part of the student/teen/young adult population. Their excessive intake does not dent the overall loss of business due to many people of the age group abiding by the new law. > 2. is a "forbidden fruit" argument consistent with economic rationality? Perhaps excessive drinkers drank excessively prior to the new law for reasons like "being cool," and placing legal age restrictions increases the effect. So, they are rational in reaching their irrational objectives. Regards, Sourav (from MIT, the home of smart people doing stupid things in really smart ways) -------- Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
Re: Daylight savings politics message dated "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:18:52 -0500."
"Eric Crampton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> > I have never understood this rationale--especially for farmers.
> - easier to have hired labour show up for 6 instead of 5 am.
> - the greater the overlap between your work-hours and everyone else's, the
> easier it is to get parts and repairs and such
> - if your kids are in school 9-3:30 (and on the bus 8:00-4:30), you can
> get more work out of them from 4:30 to sundown if sundown is later (tough
> to get much work out of them before school).
As valid as these concerns are, would they really affect the national
economy? Since government enforces daylight savings, they have to look
at the total cost-benefit analysis. Agriculture is the only industry
that really _needs_ daylight savings, yet it only accounts for a small
fraction of the country's GDP. According to census data for 1997,
"Agriculture, forestry, and fishing" only account for $130 billion out
of a GDP of over $8 trillion, or only about 1.6% of the entire economy.
(http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/99statab/sec14.pdf)
So why bother? Agriculture is a strong lobby on capital hill, that's
for sure, and farming states do have a disproportionate number of
senators ...
Sourav
--------
Sourav K. Mandal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
Fountainhead, Rand
Re: Digital Gold Offers Liquidity to Dollar-Spooked Investors message dated "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:59:08 -0700."
"Chris Rasch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> It will be interesting to see what happens when more and more transactions
> occur via these currencies. One caveat: much of that growth rate appears to
> be due to online Ponzi and MLM schemes.]
Say, hypothetically, that the demand for gold as currency becomes so
strong that it starts to affect the price (apart from the pre-existing
market pressures from industrial and jewelry uses) by outstripping
production. This might occur during a economic boom. Then, would not
gold stockpiles increase in value w/o having provided a service,
undermining gold's accuracy as a unit of wealth? The equivalent would
be a government recalling fiat paper currency at too high a rate or
printing currency at too slow a rate, causing "artificial" deflation in
cash holdings.
Now, this does not affect E-Gold in the forseeable future, as they rely
on expenditures being in fiat currencies, acting as a medium of
exchange. This is harmless as gold has exhibited stability comparable
to some of the world's best currencies during the last decade or so.
But, if the world were to revert to "notes" (paper or electronic) that
represent masses of gold, then this problem of deflation may crop up
with strong economic growth.
Questions:
* What metrics do benevolent and intelligent gov'ts use to decide how
fast they print money? I suppose these metrics are similar to ones
used to measure the growth or atrophy of an economy.
* Can a system be implemented in the private sector that provides an
(in/de)flation free currency which accurately represents wealth
creation?
Possible solutions:
Well, any company or consortium, like E-Gold or PayPal, can issue
currency. But what formulae would they use to manage their currency
properly?
* Track the price of a single commodity, such as gold, and issue
currency at such a rate as to keep the price more or less stable.
Adjustments have to be made if the demand for the commodity changes.
* Track a bunch of commodities to more easily absorb short-term
supply/demand fluctuations in any single commodity. This also prevents
"gaming" by entities that strongly control singe commodities.
Nothing jumps out as being the obvious solution ...
Regards,
Sourav Mandal
PS: I apologize for any naivete -- I have no formal education in
monetary theory or policy.
----
Sourav K. Mandal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
Fountainhead, Rand
Re: U.S. income & wealth inequality message dated "Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:03:54 +0000."
"Yann Le Du <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> Rich locations in cities are much more
> protected by the police against property theft than the poor locations.
Or maybe there is just less crime being attempted in rich areas, since
the would-be criminals are likely to be better off themselves. After
all, how convenient is it for poor criminals to travel a fair distance
to rob rich folks where they live?
> Also, nearly everywhere, it's one dollar, one vote. So the rich have
> much more influence on the policies of governments than the poor. As a
> result, policies are necessarily in favor of the rich, or help them in
> their goal of staying rich.
[...]
> All policies that help the poor are only there so that these poor don't
> get too pissed off, hang the rich and party in their properties. The
> aristocrats failed there. They were decapitated.
So why do the poor let the rich get away with it? After all, no matter
how influential you think money is, the votes are still counted in the
end. I guess they are happy with the ostensibly condescending
legislation effected by the rich.
> The fact that the system helps the poor a little bit is only a side-effect
> of that main goal : preserve the rich and make them richer.
So, in light of this, is not the libertarian political faction the true
friend of the poor? After all, why are business special interest
groups any more evil than social welfare special interest groups?
> 1/ it satisfies some other rich guy(s), who's richer, or who badly want(s)
> to get richer,
What's wrong with badly wanting to be rich? Do you mean getting rich
by influencing public policy or inciting corruption? To quote an old
cliche, "the problem is not the money in politics, it's the politics
interfering in money-making."
Regards,
Sourav Mandal
Sourav K. Mandal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
Fountainhead, Rand
Re: Growth, Wealth, and Race message dated "Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:53:34 -0500."
"Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> Sachs has popularized a strong finding: Distance from the equator
> explains a great deal of the variation in income *levels* between
> countries. The further from the equator, the richer countries are.
> There are also some parallel findings for growth - controlling for other
> factors, growth is slower in the tropics than in temperate zones.
>
> Question: What would controlling for racial composition do to these
> results?
Check out this map from the World Bank with countries color-coded by
per capita GNP (1995):
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/map1.htm
It seems like Caucasians dominate, with some admixture from Japan and
Korea. The former Communist bloc (USSR, satellite states) are the only
predominantly Caucasian states to have a relatively poor showing.
My humble opinion as to what's going on: The regions which first shed
subsistence farming as their economic base have grown to dominate the
world scene in the last few hundred years. The Soviet bloc regressed
from that somewhat in the 20th century. Trade, and efficient division
of labor through industrialization, wins.
Why did these cultures/states/locales move to industry first? Well,
the colder the climate, the more brutal the subsistence farming
lifestyle.
Regards,
Sourav Mandal
--------
Sourav K. Mandal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
"... and he wondered whether the peculiar solemnity of
looking at the sky comes, not from what one contemplates,
but from that uplift of one's head."
Fountainhead, Rand
Re: Homelessness message dated "Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:12:47 -0500."
"Mark Steckbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > An interesting news story affirming my contention that zoning > restrictions contribute to homelessness is the push by a few northern > Virginia state lawmakers to enact a state law outlawing residents from > sleeping in any rooms of their homes other than their bedrooms. Their > reasoning is that poor people (read: immigrants) tend to rent single-family > homes and then pack them with roommates using every room, including the > kitchen, as bedrooms. That is pretty lame, but probably true. Though, around Northern Virginia, the biggest beef is that all the immigrants who pack themselves into homes each own cars, often making on-street parking difficult for neighbors. Feel free to blame the lack of good public transportation ... As draconian and indirect as "bedroom" zoning ordinances are, why do they cause homelessness? This just means that people who want to work can't afford to live in the district of enforcement. Therefore, isn't it more likely that they'll go elsewhere for work, rather than go homeless? I can tell you that in recent memory, the only homeless person I've seen in Northern Virginia is this well-fed Vietnam vet who works the I-395N/Seminary Road off-ramp. One might argue that zoning restrictions in Northern Virginia cause homelessness _elsewhere_, but : * No. Va. is special in that it has one of the highest costs of living in the US. * No. Va., even during this economic downturn, is hardly the only place that has an open job market. So I disagree with your contention that zoning restrictions _necessarily_ cause homelessnes, even if they are overbearing and ill-conceived. Sourav -------- Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Homelessness message dated "Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:34:10 -0500."
""William Dickens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > If someone knows of a study showing that homelessness is voluntary I would lo > ve to see it. Here's a link to comprehensive study done by the Urban Institute (careful, document is all in one page, over 500KB): http://www.urban.org/housing/homeless/homeless.html I would call the readers attention to Fig. 2.8, "Most Important Thing Respondent Thinks is Preventing Exit from Homelessness". Of all respondents, 30% say "Insufficient Income" and a different 24% say "Lack of Job". Supporting demographic info: * About 75% of the homeless are above age 18. (Table 2.3) * Around 90% of homeless adults with progeny do NOT have custody of their children. (Fig. 2.7) * Occurrence of mental health problems: Lifetime 57%, past year 45%, past month 39%. (Table 2.4) * Occurence of drug and/or alcohol problems w/o mental illness: Lifetime 30%, past year 29%, past month 27% (Table 2.4) Therefore, given the excellent performance of the economy at the time the data was collected (1996, 1997), we can infer: * A significant portion of the homeless are mentally ill, and that may prevent them from holding down jobs. * Around around 30% have substance abuse problems _not_ as a result of mental illness. This substance abuse may prevent them from holding down jobs, as well. * The rest, around 15-30%, don't want jobs bad enough. Thus, you can draw one of two conclusions: * If you believe that substance abuse is a choice, then 45-60% of the homeless are that way as a direct result of their choices. * If you believe that substance abuse is a disease, then only 15-30% of the homeless are that way as a direct result of their choices. Since I believe the former, my view that for many homelessness is a choice is supported by this study. I do not see any figures for what fraction of those mentally ill refuse treatment; if it is signficant, then there is yet another large subgroup for whom homelessness is at least somewhat of a choice. Regards, Sourav Mandal ---- Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Competitive advantage through people message dated "Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:45:05 -0700."
"Chris Rasch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > According to Michael > Porter's now famous framework, the five fundamental competitive forces > that determine the ability of firms in an industry to earn > above-normal returns are "the entry of new competitors, the threat of > substitutes, the bargaining power of buyers, the bargaining power of > suppliers, and the rivalry among existing competitors." Isn't that the California power industry? Or, do the buyers (electricity consumers) have too much power through legislation? Then, perhaps, it is the California power industry prior to deregulation, i.e. an economic oligarchy. Sourav ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Homelessness message dated "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:01:33 -0800."
"Daljit Dhadwal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > I understand this argument, but is this the best economics can do in > explaining why people are homeless? Yes, there are people who are homeless because mental institutions cannot accommodate them. More often than not, state mental health inspectors can only forcibly detain people if they are violent. Many of those mentally ill and homeless are non-violent, and rationally or irrationally, don't do more to find sturdy shelter. There are other, quasi-voluntary precipitators of homelessness: * Drug addiction * Emotional trauma * Mild mental retardation * Etc. ... I think surveys of homeless people have shown that a majority of them prefer to be that way; many who don't are destitute single mothers and the ilk. Even in the winter, they want a warm place to sleep, but most still prefer to be homeless. Sourav ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Fines Proportional To Income message dated "Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:02:21 -0800."
"Alex Tabarrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > While middle-income Finns seem to find the system fair, some of > their wealthier countrymen wonder if they should even risk hefty > fines by getting behind the wheel of a car in the first place. As usual, there are three main issues here: Privacy, deterrance and culpability. * Privacy I wouldn't like the idea of the police knowing how much I make w/o a court subpoena. How much more hated would the IRS be if the Treasury Department freely shared information with other law enforcement bodies such as the FBI for penal purposes? * Deterrance It certainly gets people where it hurts, not unlike jury-scaled punitive damages against big-money defendants in civils suits. Rightly or wrongly, the tobacco and gun manufacturers settlements/verdicts come to mind. I think this policy is more than effective as a deterrant because no one can easily write off the financial loss. The upside to speeding is limited in most areas due to traffic congestion, so the profit motive does not neutralize the deterrant effect as with the death penalty. * Culpability The idea of traffic violations defies legal logic for this issue because their prime purpose is deterrance: stop dangerous behavior before it hurts somebody. In other legal spheres, like criminal law, a person or organization is punished only after another person or organization gets hurt (drug offenses not withstanding). And, jail time is equally punitive no matter how wealthy a convict is, since most people in the US have the same life expectancy. So, how does one calculate a punishment that fits the crime? If I dare say, this exposes an inconsistency in the concept of government-born a priori regulations. This arbitrariness would not be an issue if roads were private, where the usage rules and corresponding penalties would be shaped by market forces, not unlike the Terms of Service (TOS) enforced by various Internet service providers. The concerns over the Finnish formula for punishing speeding are more than justifiable in the context of ethical principles. Regards, Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Determinants of "Market Concentration" message dated "Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:34:16 -0600."
"fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Any reasons why the economy is "decentering" - is it the rise of > small hi-tech firms or is it some more fundamental process like more > complex and wealthy societies can demand and support a wider variety of > firms? I think this is due to the tech boom, where large, well-established firms found themselves too clumsy to deal with changing markets. Ideas, which do not require much infrastructure, became the prized commodities. Now that the ideas have fought one another to death, the big companies should be able to re-enter the fray having painfully restructured themselves. Assets will likely shift back -- the NASDAQ v. DOW stuff right now seems representative. For example, it'll be interesting to see which e-tailers survive this holiday season, and which brick-and-mortars get online successfully. > PS It is interesting to note that concentration as measured by firms > seems to be decling, while income gaps become larger. Well, when you have "decentering," that applies to management responsibility as well. Thus, the median and average incomes will rise due to an agglomeration higher up on the corporate ladder, smearing the middle class upward. I doubt anything negative has happened in the lower income brackets; if that were the case, it would indicate something very dramatic going on. Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: energy supplies message dated "Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:22:26 -0500."
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote: > I just read the news and saw an interesting piece on the yahoo site. > "Richardson said he would order investor-owned wholesalers to sell power to > California at a price he considered fair." Should Mr. Richardson be > determining price levels for California electric suppliers? Based on my informal analysis, such an action would help the politicians and the poor now, but would also defer the crisis to a later date. The postponed crisis would be even worse than the one this winter. Unless they want to subsidize CA power suppliers with increased taxes (yeah, that's popular!) the citizenry and pols will have to just suck it up. For a purely political standpoint, a good interim solution might be to provide additional utility subsidies or tax credits to the poor for this winter, and then see how the situation plays out. They're going to have new build power plants sooner or later, and it'll be interesting too see how high prices have to get before somebody relents. I bet they'll revert to regulation wholesale before the environmentalists break. Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Pocket Change message dated "Thu, 14 Dec 2000 14:55:14 -0600."
"fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > A friend of mine noticed that men tend to carry rather large > amounts of change in their pockets compare to women. > > Any economic explanation of why this is? Men don't use purses, which have much greater change-carrying capacity than wallets (well, I don't use a purse). Also, men's clothing has more pockets than women's clothing, overall (eg., jackets, trousers, "cargo pants," etc.). My perception is that this behavior is reversing, however, as there is a long-term trend towards wearing androngynous clothing as casual wear, by both men and women. Visit your local Gap or Citisports, and you'll see women shop for subtly-feminized versions of what was traditionally men's clothing. (I'm not making a moral judgement or anything -- I shop at these places myself). I think it can be said that traditional men's clothing is more utilitarian then women's clothing, and hence men have tossed change into whatever receptacle they find convenient. Women have been forced to throw their junk into purses, since it's incovenient (and traditionally unseemly?) to put coinage, pens, random slips of paper, etc. into blouse or skirt pockets, which seem to be there for effect only. Sourav PS: Coinage is stupid; long live Coinstar! One of my physics teachers calculated that pennies lose their value after having been carried around for one week, due to caloric expenditure. Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: CA electricity shortage message dated "Sun, 10 Dec 2000 15:41:25 -0500."
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> I just read today's Krugman editorial on the NYT regarding the deregulation
> of electricity issue in California. As many sharp members of this list do
> reside in CA, I wonder what their reactions are...
[...]
> http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/10/opinion/10KRUG.html
The author overlooks some obvious objections:
* Let us assume that the power companies, in all their evil, have
infallible analysts who can figure out totally accurate price-demand
curves. In that case, it'd be nice if the author actually proved
that power companies are on the favorable side of demand by citing
some more detailed figures. I have not yet read the NBER paper
because a) I'm not an economist and b) it costs money via their
website ($5). Even then, in the NBER paper abstract it reads:
"While these results make deregulation of generation less attractive
than if there were no market power, they do not suggest that
deregulation would be a mistake."
* My father is the supervisor of maintenance at a local power plant,
so he is an authority on generating capacity availability. He
actually considers California's 75% on-line figure to be "very
good," since he says that the industry standard is 60-70%. This
means that CA's power companies have by far the best engineers and
operating conditions (unlikely), or that they're actually stretching
their hardware to the max (likely).
* The author says that the companies are not building new capacity
because they are gun-shy due to market fluctuations. While this may
be true, it is rather hard to swallow since there is such a high
demand for power -- again, this line of reasoning hinges on some
quasi-malicious intent by the companies seduced by some
extraordinary price-demand curves. Also, he fails to point out that
after years of artificial pricing, the power companies may not have
enough accumulated capital to absorb market risks.
* There are anecdotal reports that at least a few power companies
that very badly want to build capacity, but are being thwarted by
enviromentalists and NIMBY ("Not in My Backyard") syndrome since
most of California is inhabited by people or enviromental preserves.
This is a double whammy since the same population growth that
squeezes generating capacity tighter probably also pushes this
political hurdle higher. Bear in mind that nearly all forms of
viable power generation require a substantial source of cool water.
(For example, visit "http://www.southsanjose.com/".)
Power deregulation is working in areas where there isn't such a big
power crunch, like in the Washington DC metropolitan area. The new
eye on profits is pissing off the unions, but everyone else (esp.
shareholders) seem to be pretty satisfied.
At first blush, it seems like the the author of this NYT editorial
is being one of the reactionaries that he his lambasting.
Regards,
Sourav Mandal
PS: I reside in Northern Virginia.
Sourav K. Mandal
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
Re: Buchanan Palm Beach Statistics message dated "Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:37:40 -0800." message dated "Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:27:39 +0000."
> >I like the toin coss idea because it would be incredibly > >entertaining. "Yann Le Du <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Admit it : your real name is Luke Rhinehart ;-) What I propose is not a decision-making technique as much as a sampling one. Since the vote has not yielded a statistically signficant result, we can be confident that the probabilistic uniformity of the coin toss is *representative*. It would be a cool experiment though, to randomly choose among candidates who happen to make it onto the ballot. I'm sure somebody on this mailing list has those 8- and 12-sided Dungeons and Dragons dice. "Pierre Lemieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Which brings back an old idea. If "we" really wanted to have representative > representatives, they could be chosen randomly. Yes, but how would you figure out that they're any good for the job? Off the top of my head, the biggest benefit of campaigns and elections is that they provide opportunities for candidates to exhibit competence, vision and leadership through exposure to those they would deign to represent and lead. Just because this year was a presidential Dust Bowl, don't give up farming! Sincerely, Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Buchanan Palm Beach Statistics message dated "Sat, 11 Nov 2000 16:37:40 -0800."
"Alexander Robert William Robson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Interestingly, the popular vote is also so close that Gore's > national margin is probably well within that caused by voter mistake and > human error nationwide (and also in other close states). I wonder if > Gore's supporters who are arguing that a revote should take place in > Florida would also argue that revoting be done elsewhere? Here's a thought: * States should declare a election a draw if the victor's margin is less than some legislated value, like 0.2%. * In the event of a draw, there should be a cursory investigation of willful election fraud or massive (> 0.2%) incompetence/negligence/mi sfortune. For example, you may have all heard of the story where a Michigan precinct could not report because a bear was holding the polling place hostage. * If there are indictable allegations of fraud or sizable ballot mishandling, the election is reheld where the irregularities took place, otherwise the draw stands. The winner is whomever ended up with more votes in the draw, or the winner of a coin toss. I like the toin coss idea because it would be incredibly entertaining. Regards, Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Assassination message dated "Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:35:26 -0700."
"Alex Tabarrok <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Are there any good reasons for an anti-assassination policy? Let us consider two situations: * Not quite war (Cuba, Serbia until last week, Cold War USSR, etc.): Killing a leader will only make him a martyr, esp. if he has a strong popular mandate. This would only help galvanize an anti-American movement, leading to terrorism. At best, some successor would simply fill the vacuum. * War: Like above, such an action might serve only to intensify any fighting. Also, it would be a waste of resources. Unlike chess, the idea is not to eliminate the "king," but to capture your objective, which is not necessarily the same thing. No matter how charismatic your enemy leader is, the successor would probably be competent enough to continue to wage war. There are some special situations for which assassination might be exactly what the doctor ordered: * If the enemy cultural mobilization is founded primarily on a cult of personality. * If the enemy is highly disorganized in the ranks and the leader is a control freak. Then it would be like chess. So, for recent US enemies: * Hussein: Great candidate. The only thing the Iraqis hate more than Hussein is the US. If Hussein is eliminated, that would allow trade sanctions to be lifted. I doubt Hussein would be considered a martyr since Iraq has been condemned by most of the Muslim world, and because he ruled with a military iron fist w/o the pretense of being a religious leader. * Milosevic: Poor candidate. Until recently, what gave Milosevic his power was strong popular support among ethnic Serbs. Even if Milosevic were eliminated, the motivations for the Balkan wars would have still resided in the populace. In the current situation, if for some reason Milosevic were able retain support from the military, then he would be a ripe assassination candidate. I think it's important to note that if you're as libertarian as Harry Browne, you would probably not support US involvement in either the Persian Gulf or the Balkans. If that is the case, then I cannot imagine a possible conflict in which assassination would be worth the funding it would take and risks it would entail, apart from discombobulating the occasional violent cult. Regards, Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Underpaid workers message dated "Tue, 26 Sep 2000 21:59:16 +0200."
"Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Isn't one of the reasons why some highly qualified people feel underpaid > the fact that in many structures, they feel they have a value > that is unacknowledged or unexploited by their hierarchy? That is exactly right. Professional athletes are considered to be overpaid, but they are subject to the strange economics of zero-sum competition. How much would you pay for a person or service that dramatically improves your chances of success? For example, do you think the people of Chicago chagrined the $36 million one-year guaranteed contract Michael Jordan got in his final year? Academia is almost a negative-sum game. People are simpy trying to survive (i.e, get tenure), with no hope really of discovering something profitable. This is changing somewhat, esp. in biology with medical applications. I'm glad to see all the sweet cars (MBs, BMWs, Jaguars) and motorcycles (Yamaha YZF-R1s, Ducati 996s, Harley customs) in the parking lot next to the biology building (Bldg. 68) at MIT. I hope that the physics people like myself come upon such riches in the near future, but I won't be unhappy if they don't; in the interim, I don't mind if I drive my dad's hand-me-down Oldsmobile. The solid-state folks are making some headway ... > This may be particularly true when the hierarchy doesn't grasp > the technicalities of the work and/or the far reaching effects > that make the work add value, as compared to other works with > more immediate effects (sale, finance). This is a short-term, local consideration. Once someone starts making hard cash on their skills, everyone jumps on the wagon. > In summary, people are paid according to the value their employer expects > them to bring; but their own expectation about that value differs, > and they will feel underpaid (and complain) or overpaid (and be happy). True -- it takes a few enterprising souls to shoot through and expose an untapped revenue source. Once the cash starts flowing, people can start making competetive distinctions from one another based on how much value they produce. In academic research w/o market interests, it's hard to gauge the value in objective terms. There are ancillary considerations, like fame, cachet gained from Nobel Prizes and gov't. appointments, etc. Regards, Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: SAT??? message dated "Wed, 30 Aug 2000 15:30:02 -0400."
"Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > What in the world is the deal with the press on rising SAT scores? Last > thing I heard, the SAT grading system switched from an absolute score to > a periodically re-normed curved score. So the comparisons with previous > years' scores make no sense. I believe that the SAT and the general GRE have been on a normal distribution from the beginning. Other tests are a bit trickier, since they deign to measure absolute competence as well ... > Is this a gross deception? Or are these reports (?!) carefully adjusted > to account for this problem? Both possibilities shock me, but the first > seems more plausible than the second. I believe ETS only renormalizes scores every few years, longer for tests that are taken by more people. This migh seem idiosyncratic, but I believe it is for the precise purpose of allowing schools to benchmark themselves, as this recent report benchmarks the whole nation. This would not be possible with, say, the physics GRE subject test, since the score distributions change drastically from test to test, let alone from year to year. I'm sure they will "recenter" the SAT soon. Sourav Mandal -------- Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Economics and Image Making of Universities message dated "Thu, 03 Aug 2000 16:12:38 -0400."
""Nicholas E. Rozen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > b) Differences in university "identities" generally smooth out or level > out over time. > c) Some differences in university "identity" grow over time. I would say that schools most define their "personality" by choosing whom to admit, and to whom they give scholarships (if applicable); of course, though, the applicant pool selects itself to a great degree. The feedback gain in this process is higher than most, because the service provider can sell with a global perspective, while the consumers, students, must shop with a great deal of commitment to one provider. Contrast this with, say, car shopping, wherein dealers must move individual cars, but buyers can choose not just between dealers, but makes and models. So, I think both "b" and "c" apply depending on the situational needs of an institution. Sometimes, schools need to bolster their cachet in order to top off their recruiting, or increase their cultural prominence. Other times, schools realize that their long term strategy leads them to oblivion, and so they must have a complete "makeover" lest they perish. > If Universities/Colleges rarely ever merge, > why is that? The zeroth-order solution is that organizations have a strong self-preservation instinct. If two general universities merge, a provost, a president, a dean of students life, etc. would have to be fired or relocated. So, a merger would only likely get through if there is utter doom on the horizon for one or both of the schools. > I'd seen indications that over-achieving high school applicants with > both personal depth and financial resources tended to carefully examine > "quality of life"/"lifestyle"/"fun"/"image" features when applying to > colleges. That is true. Nearly all of the top schools have excellent hard science programs, most have well-known humanities departments. Unless the applicant has a strong desire to study a specialized field (engineering, business, computer science, etc.), academic reputation per se is not a strong differentiating factor. I myself knew that I wanted to study physics as an undergrad applicant, and there are number of schools (nearly 10) that have top-flight physics program. When researching schools, I decided upon MIT as my first choice based on a few simple criteria: * Organized, funded undergraduate research program (MIT's UROP, CalTech's SURF) * I like an eclectic, active campus culture * I like to party (this, of course, has changed somewhat since the death of Scott Krueger) Given the natural lack of differentiation on the academic front, personality becomes a big issue in recruiting/applying. Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Justification of IP message dated "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:27:13+0200." message dated "Thu, 27 Jul 2000 10:22:30 -0500."
tor is like destroying one's estate. If I create something, I should be able to pass it on in my will, because it is property. Currently, Hitler's descendents wish to claim about $20 million in back royalties. I support them, but I do hope they do something nice with the cash ... > Luke Francl, > mere student :) Me too. Regards, Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Justification of IP message dated "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:24:43 +0200." message dated "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:57:45 +0200." message dated "Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:43:45 +0200."
operty: Say person A writes a song, and sells CD. Person B borrows the CD from a friend, rips it, and returns the CD; person A receives no royalties. However, this is not unethical, because person B is in no way depriving person A, or anyone else, of the song data. First-right/value-addition -- Basic Idea: The extent of rights is that each person deserves whatever is earned by his or her own volition and labor. Material property: Person A either unearthed, discovered, built or bought a toaster. Person A has an unequivocal right to this toaster, whether person B exists or not. Intellectual property: Person A wrote an original song, i.e. a song that did not exist before. Person A has an unequivocal right to the song (i.e. arbitrary licensing), whether person B exists or not. So -- Take exclusion as a starting principle. It leads to exclusion in material property. It leads to non-exclusion, and hence non-ownership, for intellectual entities. Take value-addition as a starting principle. It leads to total control of both material property and intellectual property, and hence results in owner-enforced exclusion for both. There is a substantive difference and conflict in these two principles; I am at a loss at how to illustrate it more clearly. "If you do not understand it, I cannot explain it to you." -- Gian-Carlo Rota (1932-1999) > > Until our ethical > > principles have converged, we cannot possibly agree on the question > > of intellectual property. > Indeed. I more and more think you are deeply confused, > and unable to apply your own principles. Check your assumptions! I think that you are the one flummoxed, and that I am correct. Gosh, whatever will we do. > BTW: your .signature appears twice in your e-mail. Yup, thanks. My MUA (mail user agent) was set incorrectly. Cheers, Sourav PS: Is beer brewed in France? If so, is it any good? Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Justification of IP message dated "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:24:43 +0200." message dated "Tue, 25 Jul 2000 07:57:45 +0200."
To Francois-Rene: On exclusion v. first-right: I agree with you that exclusion and first-right are different but not necessarily contradictory concepts. Indeed, the nature of an apple is to be exclusive, while the nature of digital data is to be non-exclusive. However, the basis of property rights should not be what is natural for the property, but that which is natural for people. In other words, property rights should be founded more upon concepts germane to demarcating the property claims of people, than on the physical dispostion of that which is to be claimed. This, I believe, is best done by first-right/value-addition. The two different principles of ownership create the same result for physical entities, but have different results in ethics for intellectual/abstract entities. My thesis is that first-right is a more sound basis for property rights in general, and so should be adhered to for intellectual property rights as well, since it applies. On collectivism: While Adam Smith, Hayek and Bastiat have given us all great food for thought, "public good" is a collectivist object, plain and simple. While public welfare or consumer benefit are valid concepts of result in studies like economics, they are inamicable to discussions of ethics. To consider collectivism and individualism both to be equally valid ethical bases is too discard a critical aspect of ethics -- universality. As far as I can tell, in the space of ethics, collectivism and individualism are both irreducible principles, so there is not much to argue over. And this might be where we are mired. Exclusion is a collectivist principle of ownership, while first-right is an egoistic principle. Exclusion is collectivist because property rights of the individual are based on how others are deprived; first-right is egoistic because property rights for the individual are based on the individual, with no a priori regard to others. Until our ethical principles have converged, we cannot possibly agree on the question of intellectual property. Sourav -------- Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" ------------ Sourav K. Mandal [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ikaran.com/Sourav.Mandal/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Justification of IP message dated "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:24:43 +0200."
WORD TO OTHER LIST SUBSCRIBERS: If you don't wish to ram through several kilobytes of argumentation, scroll to the bottom for my quickie summary on the debate. "Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 02:58:11AM -0400, Sourav K. Mandal wrote: > > > one has the unenviable task of proving a negative > > in order to make a definition stand on its own legs. > Uh? On the contrary, one has to prove a _positive_ in > order to make a definition stand on its own legs. > That's a well-known property of definitions, as studied in proof theory. > Actually, many mathematicians are firstly interested in constructive proo= Definitions map a word or term to a concept. The reason it is negative is because you must justify that it is precisely that one concept, and no others. > Well, in as much as I accept your definition of IP as consistent, > I reject its merit as unapplicable to anything. That's why we are arguing justification. > My point is that not all "property" is justified. That is obvious. If I steal your computer, it is not my justifiable property. If a monarch provides exclusive rights to trade with India to one company, that is unjustifiable exclusivity. > Homesteading theory: the land is owned by the one who not only claims it, > but can also successfully hoard it, physically. Just saying "everything > west to the mississipi is mine" doesn't count unless you can back your > claim with facts. Again, you assert the exclusion principle; I am saying the exclusion principle is a poor standard for property rights. > >> Yeah, right. As long as you are the one holding the gun, > >> you may get away with it. As long as you also hold the media, > >> you may blank out your utter evil from the minds of most people. > >> But don't you ever put down the gun, and don't you stop your propagand= > a, > >> for the oppressed and the slaves will make you regret it! > > > > I won't dignify this with a response. > > That's funny: I do dignify IP "arguments" with a response, > even though they are the mostest insult to my mind: a gun pointed at it. Well, then I shall give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope that you were being sarcastic. You would agree that ethics has a universal component, and so as ugly as enforcement is, I would have no feelings of guilt if I could point a gun at a thief's head to safeguard my property rights. For every conceivable instance of IP theft this is overkill, but the principle of enforcement is unwavering. > Let me rephrase it, and re-quote the fragment of Bastiat that you quote b= > elow: > "Property does not exist because there are laws, > but laws exist because there is property." > IP is an artefact of law. No one can naturally hoard an idea, > but by secret (which is his own responsibility to preserve), > or violence (which he is not entitled to, but by corrupt governments). > Hence IP isn't property. I am arguing that IP is as much property as your toaster, and so Bastiat's laws are protocols of enforcement for IP. You must re-quote Bastiat *after* you have completed you argument that IP is unnatural. > >>> Ethical Justification of Property: That which itself does not have > >>> rights, can be property. > >> No. That which naturally has the property of exclusion, > >> and is yet unclaimed, can be claimed by homesteading it, > >> i.e. by being first to use the thing. > > > > I say, "can be property", you say "will be your property." Again, > > refer to the delineated argument in defense of (intellectual) > > property for the demarcations of rights here. > > > Ok, so in as much as the "right for X to do Y" can be owned, > I contend that naturally, every X owns his own right to do Y. > To confer to a given looter L the right of X to do Y for every X, > would be to deprive every X (except L) from a right that was naturally hi= > s. > If you pretend that X would have to claim his own right before L, > then I claim that the claim is implicit in the claim of Liberty. Your response is a rehash of Tucker's argument against IP. How can every X have a right to a *creative work* Y, without his mistaken notion of "potentiality?" I must have the same potentiality as Grisham (we are both Xes, after all), I could claim all his writings as mine. > Or else, I will contend that I claim your right to live in 2001, > and since you didn't make that claim before, this right is mine, > and I will withhold it from you, so you must die by December 31, 2000. > BTW, I claim everyone's right to life on t
Re: Justification of IP message dated "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 02:27:13 +0200."
about infringement on the right to thought. Eben Moglen: This person discards theoretical arguments by calling IP philosophers "droids," then "concludes" the theoretical arguments by making an empirical statement about legal implementation: "But that wasn't what I was arguing about. I wanted to point out something else: that our world consists increasingly of nothing but large numbers (also known as bitstreams), and that - for reasons having nothing to do with emergent properties of the numbers themselves - the legal system is presently committed to treating similar numbers radically differently." That's like saying we shouldn't have physical property rights, because it's impossible to tell all the quarks and leptons apart from one another. Structure matters; again, the mere fact that IP semantics are being used in the argument means that they have some distinguishable form. Jess Walker: I am more important to me than "popular culture;" his arguments are shamefully collectivist. I have mixed feelings on the publication, Reason: They are great at breaking down BS, but seem to fall flat when it comes to philosophical argumentation. > > A critique of my > > argumentation that accepts my ethical principle is welcome. > I believe that we ultimately have the same ethical principle, > but that you don't have a clear idea of what information is. This is ad hominem. I do indeed know what information is; if you firmly believe I am completey mistaken on the nature of information and abstract structure, please teach me. We disagree on the rights people should have to it, that's all. > Well, I can return the compliment to you: > http://lists.tunes.org/list/cybernethics/0003/msg0.html I agree with you. If you accidentally see top secret information, then you should be able to worry more about your nation's poor security than prosecution. However, the government or its subcontractors should be permitted to own non-exclusive patents on, say, a new ultra-quiet submarine propeller. > http://lists.tunes.org/list/cybernethics/0004/msg1.html > http://lists.tunes.org/list/cybernethics/0004/msg2.html I think you succuessfully recount your thoughts on the matter of IP; though, you do not seem to address any of the fundamental principles that are more far-reaching. To wit, here are my personal principles, and I ask you if they are any different: * Metaphysics: Universal singularity. * Epistemology: Reason, i.e. science. * Ethics: Me, myself and I, provided I don't trample you. * Aesthetics: Rational eloquence. > As for the basic libertarian assumptions about Liberty and Property, > I think we agree. But as for Intellectual Property being natural > or government-granted, I think that you, like Ayn Rand, like Bastiat, > are misled by the word "Property" How so? Bastiat rights, "I would say: Property does not exist because there are laws, but laws exist because there is property." Do you disagree with this? Regards, Sourav Mandal PS: I was annoyingly prescient about the "white-hot rhetoric." A friendly word: In future correspondence, please make sure I am not the Armchair list's Tiresias -- SKM. Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" PGP signature
Justification of IP; FORMERLY: Why rich people tend to support government. message dated "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 01:18:36 +0200." message dated "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 10:03:46 -0400."
e, please send flames to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" (I'm sorry sir, I do not know your real name!).
-- SKM
Sourav K. Mandal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
Sourav K. Mandal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
PGP signature
Re: Why rich people tend to support government. message dated "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 01:18:36 +0200."
"Francois-Rene Rideau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > >>: "Sourav K. Mandal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I do not > >> see too many of the wealthy step up to bat against high tax rates. > >> Do they accept money in government coffers as currency for the > >> influential, i.e. limousine liberalism at its worst? > > >: Pierre Lemieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Your hypothesis is intriguing, but I would think that a better way to > > explian why rich tax protestors are rare is simply that the opportunity > > cost of their time is high and, so, the cost of collective action is much > > higher for them. (It is true, though, that their expected benefits might be > > higher since, indeed, they are more likely to have an influence.) > > > My take is that once the principle of legal plunder is loose, > those who will decide to lobby will have an incentive to lobby > rather for _more_ taxes, not less taxes, albeit taxes that will > benefit _them_ as opposed to other people, in the form of > direct state subsidies, regulations that will prevent competition, > tax rebates and differential taxing according to criteria that would > specifically benefit them, etc. To once again quote Bryan Caplan's > Anarchist Theory FAQ, end of section 15, itself quoting David Friedman, > "Under governmental institutions, good law is a public good and > bad law is a private good". Yes, the classic negative sum game. > > A standard > > anomaly: people like Bill Gates, who supports all the PC causes espoused by > > the tyrant who persecutes him! > > Bill Gates is not an anomaly, at least, not in the way you think. > The tyrant persecutes him, but the tyrant also raised him to begin with; > it's really a story of the tyrant giving then taking away according to > his whims; a story of the arbitrary, of the lack of Rule of Law. Um, when was he raised by the "tyrant?" Bill Gates grew up as an ambitious middle class/upper-middle class kid. He certainly never received any direct support from the government, and if you mean copyright protection, then nearly every author ever is a similar Frankenstein monster. This is what is confounding about Bill Gates. He has achieved so much by his own hand, yet is a proponent of gov't policies that abrogate the rights of those like him in future generations. > Government grant monopolies in the form of copyrights and patents, > and then, they wonder why things go wrong as brilliant though immoral > businessmen milk these monopolies by aggregating them into bigger > and bigger monopolies! What marvels me is not the evil of it all, > but the capacity of evildoers to blank out their own evil. > Gotta re-read "Atlas Shrugged" (although poor Ayn Rand was misled > into believing that IP was actual property). Exclusive patents are stupid, and I think they should be abolished to make way for concurrent patents, "public good" be damned. Concurrent patents can be support by the same line of reasoning as copyrights -- IP is indeed property, owned by the creator. I could get into it here, but I am afraid we are veering sharply off-topic ... Sourav Mandal Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Are progressive taxes misconceived? message dated "Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:34:06 -0400."
"Pierre Lemieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Your hypothesis is intriguing, but I would think that a better way to > explian why rich tax protestors are rare is simply that the opportunity > cost of their time is high and, so, the cost of collective action is much > higher for them. (It is true, though, that their expected benefits might be > higher since, indeed, they are more likely to have an influence.) The proper reference for comparison would be: what percentage of politically active rich people are against progressive taxes, vis-a-vis the same fraction for poor and middle class people? > Moreover, some wealthy individuals do support libertarian organizations, > which is a way to be a tax protestor at a lower cost (for them). Like above, are a higher percentage of rich folks libertarian than among middle class and poor people? I would guess so, but I would also say a higher percentage of rich people are left/liberal than among the general population -- chalk it up to overeducation. > A standard anomaly: people like Bill Gates, who supports all the PC causes > espoused by the tyrant who persecutes him! Ralph Ellison (CEO of Oracle) must really hate his guts. Did Ralph Ellison whine about Gates and Microsoft on behalf of the anti-trust suit, like the Netscape and Sun people? Sourav Mandal ------------ Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" -------- Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Are progressive taxes misconceived?
Let us set aside the ethical issues concerning progressive taxation, and consider the policy-driven objectives. Progressive taxes are meant as a way not to punish the rich, per se, but force them to aid people in the lower tax brackets. I am wondering, does it have in fact the opposite effect? Certainly, citizenry on the lower end of the market spectrum benefit significantly in a financial sense with progressive taxation. However, are they losing their political clout? Since the rich contribute more per capita to the government chest, do they have more influence on (or simply more interest in) public policy and legislation than they would if there were a flat tax, or a flat fee? >From my limited experience, most tax protesters/activists are middle class (I have not numbers to support this observation). I do not see too many of the wealthy step up to bat against high tax rates. Do they accept money in government coffers as currency for the influential, i.e. limousine liberalism at its worst? Sourav Mandal ---- Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle" ------------ Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Economics of crazy ideas message dated "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:25:31 -0400."
"Pierre Lemieux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote:
> For example, why do libertarians look more or
> less crazy in public discourse, and are often absent from public debates,
> while PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) runs half a doze
> websites (including cowsarecool.com) and wage campaigns with slogans like
> "Help chickens in China"?
There is heart-warming crazy, and coldly analytical crazy. People
figure that if someone's going to be crazy, at least let them be
kind. I will say that PETA is pushing the envelope with some of
their antics, which border on violent -- ask Dan Glickman, the
current Secretary of Agriculture, whose had all manner of foodstuffs
chucked at him.
------------
Sourav K. Mandal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
--------
Sourav K. Mandal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
Sourav K. Mandal
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Physics
http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/
"In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than
efflorescence of language. We must be simple,
precise, terse."
-- Edgar Allan Poe,
"The Poetic Principle"
Re: OWL: The Case Against Lottery Tickets message dated "Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:16:28 -0500."
""Birdwalk Farms" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > > > honest online casino. It's as if the government outlawed FedEx and > > UPS, but continued to operate the USPS. > > > they have done this. > > It is not well known but the minimum charge for a non USPS delivery is ten > times whatever first class postage is at the time, unless the communication > is extremely urgent. Guess who gets to decide if it is urgent or not?> I guess there is nothing more one can say. :-) Another example is the federal penitentiary industrial corporation, named UNICOR (http://www.unicor.gov). In any case, this not-for-profit program recruits federal inmates to provide factory labor (the inmates receive many times *prison* minimum wage) to build cabinets, helmet visors, garment and textile products, etc. The idea is to rehabilitate and occupy prisoners, while infusing funds to the penal system. The Uncle Sam catch is that this organization can literally snatch government contracts, provided they can provide the product within the given specifications and at a ballpark price. True story: The military needs cheap, standard issue blankets. A textile firm in Massachusetts (?) developed a way to manufacture these blankets to be much more comfortable for the same price. The military fell in love with these blankets, and wanted more. Then, UNICOR grabbed the contract by co-opting the manufacturing process, and the Mass. textile plant went under. This is not as egregious an offense as lotteries or postal services, as any firm, in this case the government, can be expected to go in-house for work. However, UNICOR cannot always provide the lowest price, meaning that our tax dollars are being wasted in a slow fashion. Oppressed by The Man's gross inefficiencies, Sourav Mandal ---- Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Followup to UNICOR cross-post
Have there been any comprehensive studies done to determine the most monetarily efficient way to execute government contracts? By going in-house, e.g. through UNICOR, the goverment eliminates the overhead of the bidding and accounting process; however, UNICOR does not always provide the cheapest price. Also, by not awarding contracts to non-goverment firms, the feds cannot recoup any taxes that might have been collected from that activity. Some simple math for a simple example contract (warning -- I have never taken an economics class): CU = cost for contract if done by UNICOR CN = cost for contract if done by non-government entity HU = overhead with UNICOR HN = overhead with non-gov. TN = fed tax rate with non-government contract (corporate, worker wages, etc.) PU = rate of profit to penal system (and hence govt.) with UNICOR Statement in question: (PU - 1) * CU - HU >= (TN - 1) * CN - HN This can be transformed numerous ways to visually isolate significant quantities. This 1st order model does not take into account macroscopic differences, like the fact that UNICOR "employees" cannot spend their money very freely outside the prison commisary. I think the question is significant because this issue is germane to other government areas, particularly big-dollar defense contracts. Regards, Sourav Mandal -------- Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
Re: Teacher/faculty compensation message dated "Fri, 30 Jun 2000 19:51:41 -0500."
"fabio guillermo rojas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" wrote: > Question: Why not increase teacher salaries? > > Answer: They can't. Gov't budgets for teachers for are maxed out, > funds for housing are earmarked for housing, not salaries (bogus answer). Salaries are taxed, while "perks" are not? I'm guessing here, because I have never had a job with enough perks (or salary) to concern myself about such things. I do know, however, that in countries with burdensome tax rates in high brackets ( > 50% !), employees who would normally fall in those brackets are instead paid with all manner of "perks" and "allowances," some of which border on the ridiculous. I have heard of jewelry and evening gown allowances, perennial luxury car leases, and at the extreme prostitutes on retainer. I am sure private schools face the same situtation. Sourav Mandal ---- Sourav K. Mandal Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Physics http://web.mit.edu/smandal/www/ "In enforcing a truth we need severity rather than efflorescence of language. We must be simple, precise, terse." -- Edgar Allan Poe, "The Poetic Principle"
