NFJS 2010 in Raleigh

2010-08-30T18:22:00.000-07:00

I attended the No Fluff Just Stuff tour in Raleigh this past weekend with a bunch of others from Railinc. After the event on Sunday I tweeted that I wasn’t all that impressed with this year’s sessions. Matthew McCullough responded asking for some details on my concerns. Instead of being terse in a tweet, I thought I’d be fair with a more lengthy response.

First off, I really wasn’t planning on going this year. I took a look at the sessions and didn’t see enough relevant content that interested me. In 2007 and 2008 I went with a group from Railinc and had a pretty good time while learning about some new things that were going on in the industry. (We didn’t go in 2009 for economic reasons.) This year, however, I felt that there wasn’t enough new content on the schedule that interested me. (I have seen/read/heard enough about REST, Grails, JRuby, Scala, etc.).

What changed my mind about going was the interest expressed by some other developers at Railinc. Since I coordinated the 2007 and 2008 trips, I thought I’d get this one coordinated, and since there was a good amount of interest, I figured I’d give it a shot as well. So, to be fair, I wasn’t going in expecting much anyway.

Here were the key issues for me:

Some of the sessions did not go in the direction that I expected. To be fair, though, I was warned ahead of time to review the slides before making a decision on a session. The problem here is that some presenters relied more on demos and less on slides, so in some cases it was hard to judge by just the slide deck.
Like I said above, I wasn’t planning on going in the first place because of the dearth of sessions that seemed interesting to me. I ended up going to some sessions because it was the least non-relevant session at that time. There were actually two sessions that I bailed on in the middle because I wasn’t getting any value from them.
Finally, and this is completely subjective, some of the speakers just didn't do it for me. While you could tell that most (if not all) of the speakers were passionate about what they were talking about, some were just annoying about it. For instance, some of the attendees I spoke to felt that the git snobbery was a bit overkill. Some of it was just speaker style - some click with me some don't.

Some things I heard from the other Railinc attendees were

Too much duplication across speakers
Not enough detail along tracks
Some of the session were too introductory - could have gotten same information from a bit of googling.

Granted, some of my concerns are subjective and specific to my own oddities. But I do remember that I had enjoyed the '07 and '08 events much more.

I did, however, enjoy Matthew's first session on Hadoop. I knew very little about the technology going in and Matthew helped crystallize some things for me. I also got some good information from Neal Ford's talks on Agile engineering practices and testing the entire stack.

I really like the No Fluff Just Stuff concept in general. I think it is an important event in the technology industry. The speakers are knowledgeable and passionate which is great to see. My mind is still open about going next year, but it will be a harder sell.

Not so Stimulating

2010-08-25T17:39:00.000-07:00

I sent the following to the Raleigh News & Observer:

E. Wayne Stewart says that “enormous fiscal stimulus ... to finance World War II led the U.S. out of the Depression.” While it is true that aggregate economic indicators (e.g., unemployment and GDP) improved during the war, it was not a time of economic prosperity.

During World War II the U.S. produced a lot of war material, not consumer goods. It was a time when citizens went without many goods and raw materials due to war-time rationing. It was also a time when wages and prices were set by government planning boards. In short, it was a time of economic privation for the general public. It wasn't until after the war, when spending was drastically reduced, that the economy returned to a sense of normalcy.

The lesson we should learn is that, yes, it is possible for government to spend enough money to improve aggregate economic indicators. That same spending, however, can distort the fundamentals of the economic structure in ways that are not wealth-producing as determined by consumer preferences.

This argument, that government spending during WWII got us out of the Depression, is used by many to justify economic stimulus. The argument I use above comes from Robert Higgs and his analysis of the economy during the Depression and WWII.

For me, though, the biggest problem with the "just spend" argument is that it ignores the nuances and subtly of a market-based, consumer-driven economy. It is like saying that to get a 1000 word essay to a 2000 word essay all you need to do is add 1000 words. There is no thought into the idea that those extra words need to fit into the overall essay in a coherent manner. A productive economy needs spending to occur in the proper places at the proper times, and it is the market process that does this most efficiently (not completely efficiently, but better than the alternatives).

Prediction Markets at a Small Company

2010-08-25T05:15:00.000-07:00

Railinc has recently started a prediction market venture using Inkling software. We have been using it internally to predict various events including monthly revenue projections and rail industry traffic volume. In July, we also had markets to predict World Cup results. While this experience has been fun and interesting, I can't claim it has been a success.

The biggest problem we've had is with participation. There is a core but small group of people who participate regularly, while most of the company hasn't even asked for an account to access the software. When I first suggested this venture I was skeptical that it would work at such a small company (just under 200 staff) primarily because of this problem. From the research I saw, other companies using prediction markets only had a small percentage of employees participate as well. However, those companies were much larger than Railinc, so the total number participating was much greater.

Another problem that is related to participation is the number of questions being asked. Since we officially started this venture I've proposed all but one of the questions/markets. While I know a lot about the company, I don't know everything that is needed to make important business decisions. Which brings up another problem - in such a small company do you really need such a unique mechanism to gather actionable information from such a limited collective?

Even considering these problems we venture forward and look for ways to make prediction markets relevant at Railinc. One way to do this is through a contest. Starting on September 1 we will have a contest to determine the best predictor. At the Railinc holiday party in December we will give an award to the person with the largest portfolio as calculated by Inkling. (The award will be similar to door prizes we've given out at past holiday parties.) I've spent some time recently with the CIO of Railinc to discuss some possible questions we can ask during this contest. We came up with several categories of questions including financial, headcount, project statistics, and sales. While I am still somewhat skeptical, we will see how it plays out.

We are also looking to work with industry economists to see if Railinc could possibly host an industry prediction market. This area could be a bit more interesting, in part, because of the potential size of the population. If we can get just a small percentage of the rail industry participating in prediction markets we could tap into a sizable collective.

Over the coming months we'll learn a lot about the viability of prediction markets at Railinc. Even if the venture fails internally, my hope is to make some progress with the rail industry.

Geospatial Analytics using Teradata: Part II - Railinc Source Systems

2010-08-12T04:58:00.000-07:00

[This is Part II in a series of posts on Railinc's venture into geospatial analytics. See Part I.]

Before getting into details of the various analytics that Railinc is working on, I need to explain the source data behind these analytics. Ralinc is basically a large data store of information that is received from various parties in the North American rail industry. We process, distribute, and store large volumes of data on a daily basis. Roughly 3 million messages are received from the industry which can translate into 9 million records to process daily. The data is categorized in four ways:

Asset - rail cars and all attributes for those rail cars
Asset health - damage and repair information for assets
Movement - location and logistic information for assets
Industry reference - supporting data for assets including stations, commodities, routes, etc.

Assets (rail cars) are at the center of almost all of Railinc's applications. We keep the inventory of the nearly 2 million rail cars in North America. For the most part, data we receive either has an asset component or in some way supports asset-based applications. The analytics that we are currently creating from this data falls into three main categories: 1) logistics, 2) management/utilization, and 3) health.

Logistics is an easy one because movement information encompasses the bulk of the data we receive on a daily basis. If there is a question about the last reported location of a rail car, we can answer it. The key there is "last reported location." Currently we receive notifications from the industry whenever a predefined event occurs. These events tend to occur at particular locations (e.g., stations). In between those locations is a black hole for us. At least for now, that is. More and more rail cars are being equipped with GPS devices that can pin point a car's exact location at any point in time. We are now working with the industry to start receiving such data to fill in that black hole.

Management/utilization requires more information than just location, however. If a car is currently moving and is loaded with a commodity then it is making money for its owner; if it is sitting empty somewhere then it is not. Using information provided by Railinc, car owners and the industry as a whole can get a better view into how fleets of cars are being used.

Finally, asset health analytics provide another dimension into the view of the North American fleet. Railinc, through its sister organization TTCI, has access to events recorded by track-side detectors. These devices can detect, among others, wheel problems at speed. TTCI performs some initial analysis on these events before forwarding them on to Railinc which then creates alert messages that are sent to subscribers. Railinc will also collect data on repairs that are performed on rail cars. With a history of such events we can perform degradation analytics to help the industry better understand the life-cycle of assets and asset components.

Railinc is unique in the rail industry in that it can be viewed as a data store of various information. We are just now starting to tap into this data to get a unique view into the industry. Future posts will examine some of these efforts.

Whatever

2010-07-07T19:17:00.000-07:00

Down with Doom
The 100 Greatest Movie Insults (NSFW)
Another plot by Wal-Mart to tick off somebody
Space porn
Solace for guitar

The Science and Art of Prediction Markets

2010-07-06T19:38:00.000-07:00

What constitutes a good question for a prediction market? Obviously, for the question to be valuable the answer should provide information that was not available when the question was originally asked. Otherwise, why ask the question. Value, however, is only one aspect of a good question. For prediction markets to function in a useful manner the questions that are asked must also be constructed properly. There is both a science and an art to this process.

The Science

There are three criteria to keep in mind when constructing a question for a prediction market:

The correct answer must be concrete
Answers must be determined on specific dates
Information about possible answers can be acquired before the settled date

Concreteness is important because it settles the question being asked - the result is not open to interpretation. An example of a question with a vague answer would be "What policy should the U.S. government enact to encourage economic growth? A) Subsidizing green energy, B) free trade, C) fiscal austerity, D) health care reform." One problem here is that the time frame to accurately answer this question could be extensive. Also, the complexities of economic growth make it difficult to tease out the individual variables that would be necessary to concretely answer the question. If two or more answers are correct (whatever that may mean) then the market may end up reflecting the value judgments of the participants, not objective knowledge. This type of question is more suited for a poll rather than a prediction.

Not only should answers be concrete, there should be some point in time when each answer can be determined to either have occurred or not have occurred. A question that never gets resolved can hamper the prediction process by reducing the incentive to invest in that market. (Can a non-expiring question be valuable? Could the ongoing process of information discovery be useful? Questions to ponder.)

This doesn't mean, however, that every answer must be determined on the same date. Wrong answers can be closed as the process unfolds. Once the correct answer is determined, however, the market should be closed. For example, take the question "Which candidate will win the 2012 Republican Party nomination for U.S. President?" If this question is asked in January of 2012 there could be several possible answers (one for each candidate). As the year progresses to the Republican Party convention, several candidates will drop out of the election. The prediction market would then close out those answers (candidates) but stay open for the remaining answers. Weeding out wrong answers over time is part of the discovery process.

The final criterion - the ability to acquire information before the settled date - is what separates prediction markets from strict gambling. If all participants are in the dark about a question until that question is settled, then there is little value in asking the question. Prediction markets are powerful because they allow participants to impart some knowledge into the process over a period of time. The resulting market prices can then provide information that can be acted upon throughout the process. If participants cannot acquire useful information to incorporate into the market, then market activity is nothing more than playing roulette where all answers are equally possible until the correct answer is determined.

A good example to illustrate the above criteria is a customer satisfaction survey. Railinc uses a bi-annual (twice a year) survey to gauge customer sentiment on a list of products. For each product, customers are asked a series of questions the answers to which range from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree). The answers are then averaged with a final score for each product ranging from 1-5 (the goal is to get as close to 5 as possible).

The following market could be set up for Railinc employees:

What will the Fourth Quarter 2010 customer satisfaction score be for product X?
Less than or equal to 4.0
Between 4.1 and 4.4 (inclusive)
Greater than or equal to 4.5

The value of this market is that Railinc management and product owners may get some insight into what employees are hearing from customers. Customer Service personnel could have one view based upon their interactions with customers, while developers may have a different view. Over time, management and product owners could take actions based upon market movements.

As far as concreteness is concerned, the final answer for this question will be determined when the survey is completed (e.g., January 2011), and it will be a specific number that falls into one of the ranges given by the answers.

This market also satisfies the last criteria regarding the ability to acquire information before the market is settled. This is important because this is where the value of the market is realized. As Railinc employees (i.e., market participants) gain knowledge over time they can incorporate that knowledge into the market via the buying and selling of shares in the provided answers.

The Art

In the example given above regarding the customer satisfaction survey, the answers provided were not arbitrary - they were selected to maximize the value of the market. This is where the art of prediction markets is applied.

If the possible answers for a customer survey are 1-5 why not provide five separate answers (1-1.9, 2-2.9, 3-3.9, 4-4.9, 5)? Why not have two possible answers (below 2.5 and above 2.5)? The selection of possible answers is partially determined by what is already known about the result. In the case of the survey, past results may have shown that this particular product has average a 4.1. It is highly unlikely that the survey results will drop to the 1-1.9 range. Providing such an answer would not be valuable because market participants would almost immediately short that position. This is still information, but it is information that is already known. What is desired is insight to what is not known. The answers provided in the above example will give some insight into whether the product is continuing to improve or whether it is digressing.

So, the selection of possible answers to market questions must take into account what is already known as well as what is unknown. What do you know about what you don't know?

Conclusion

Good questions make good prediction markets. Constructed properly, these questions can be a valuable tool in the decision making process of an organization.

Whatever

2010-06-30T18:06:00.000-07:00

Perpetual Storytelling Apparatus
What do you know about what you don't know?
Django
I don't know what we did but I know we needed it (??)
"In the long run we are all dead." Really?

Introduction to Prediction Markets

2010-06-28T18:05:00.000-07:00

Prediction Markets are an implementation of the broader concept of Collective Intelligence. In general, Collective Intelligence is an intelligence that emerges from the shared knowledge of individuals which can then be used to make decisions. With Prediction Markets (PM), this intelligence emerges through the use of market mechanisms (buying/selling securities) where the pay out depends upon the outcomes of future events. In short, the collective is attempting to predict the future.

Prediction Markets should be familiar to us because a stock market is really just a forum for making predictions about the value of some underlying security. Participants buy and sell shares in a company, for example, based on information they feel is relevant to the future value of that company. A security's price is an aggregated bit of information that is not only a prediction about the future, but is also new information from which more predictions can be made. That last part is important because prices are information that cause participants to act in a market.

A real-world example of using PMs to make decisions is Best Buy's TagTrade system. This system is used by Best Buy employees to provide information back to management on issues like customer sentiment. The linked article explains one particular incident:

TagTrade indicated that sales of a new service package for laptops would be disappointing when compared with the formal forecast. When early results confirmed the prediction, the company pulled the offering and relaunched it in the fall. While far from flawless, the prediction market has been more accurate than the experts a majority of the time and has provided management with information it would not have had otherwise

Another interesting example comes from Motorola and their attempts to deal with idea/innovation requests from their employees. Their ThinkTank system was set up to allow employees to submit ideas on products and innovations. Those in charge with weeding through these requests were initially overwhelmed. To improve the process, Motorola used PM software to allow employees to purchase shares in the submitted ideas. At the end of 30 days the market was closed and those ideas that had the highest share price got pursued, and employees holding stock in those ideas got a bonus.

(Some other companies using Prediction Markets are IBM, Google (PDF), Microsoft, and Yahoo! Some of these companies use internal prediction markets (employees only) while others provide external markets (general population). The Iowa Electronics Market (IEM), associated with the University of Iowa, uses PMs to predict election outcomes. IEM has been in existence for over 20 years, and has studies showing their predictions being more accurate than phone polls.)

The bonus paid out by Motorola points to an important aspect of PMs - incentives. With good incentives participants stay interested in the process and look for ways to make more accurate predictions. Driving people to discover new information about future events can lead to interesting behavior in a company.

Another key aspect of PMs is the idea of weighting. That is, the ability of traders to put some weight behind their predictions. Those who are more confident in their predictions can purchase/sell more shares in those outcomes. Contrast this with a simple survey where an expert's opinion gets the same weight as a layman's (one person one vote).

Railinc is now starting to venture into using Prediction Markets with Inkling's software and services. Some of the topics for which predictions could be made are bonus metrics, customer surveys, project metrics, and fun things like World Cup results. One thing that will be interesting to track over the coming months is the value of PMs in such a small company (Railinc has approximately 150 employees). Value from PMs tends to come from larger populations where errors can be canceled out and participation rates stay constant. The hope is that at some point these markets will be opened to various parties in the rail industry thereby increasing the population and alleviating this concern. If the markets were opened up to external parties then the topics could be broadened to include regulatory changes, industry trends, product suggestions, and ideas to improve existing applications. So, the potential is there if the execution is handled properly.

Prediction Markets provide an interesting way to efficiently gather dispersed information. Using this innovative tool, Railinc will attempt to tap into the Collective Intelligence of its employees and, hopefully, the rail industry.

More to come.

ESRI and Python

2010-06-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Railinc is using ESRI to create map services. One of these services provides information about North American rail stations. The official record of these stations is in a DB2 database that gets updated whenever stations are added, deleted, or changed in some way. When we first created the ESRI service to access these stations, we copied the data from DB2 to an Oracle table, then built an ESRI ArcSDE Geodatabase using the Oracle data.

We had some issues with the ArcSDE Geodatabase architecture, and after some consultation we decided to switch to a File Geodatabase. This architecture avoids Oracle altogether and instead uses files on the file system. With this set up we've seen better performance and better stability of the ESRI services. (N.B: This is not necessarily a statement about ESRI services in general. Our particular infrastructure caused us to move from the Oracle solution.)

The question now is how do we keep the stations data up-to-date when using the File Geodatabase approach? Enter Python.

Rail Stations Data

Before getting to the Python script, let's take a look at the structure of the rail stations table.

RAIL_STATION_ID - unique id for the record
SCAC - A four character ID, issued by Railinc, that signifies the owner of the station
FSAC - A four digit number that, combined with the SCAC, provides a unique identifier for the station
SPLC - A nine digit number that is a universal identifier for the geographic location of the station
STATION_NAME
COUNTY
STATE_PROVINCE
COUNTRY
STATION_POSTAL_CODE
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
LAST_UPDATED

Most of this data is going to be informational only. What's most important for this process are the latitude and longitude columns which will be used to create geospatial objects.

Python and ESRI

The end result of this process is going to be the creation of an ESRI Shapefile - a file format created and regulated by ESRI as an open specification for data interoperability. Basically, shapefiles describe geometries - points, lines, polygons, and polylines.

While working on this problem I found three ways to create shapefiles programmatically:

The ESRI Java API
The ESRI Python scripting module
The Open Source GeoTools Toolkit

I chose Python over the others because of its simplicity and its history with ESRI. (I do have a working solution using the GeoTools Toolkit that I may share in a future blog post.) Now, to the script.

First, I'll create the Geoprocessor object using the ESRI arcgiscripting module specifying that I want output to be overwritten (actually, this tells subsequent function calls to overwrite any output).

import arcgisscripting, cx_Oracle, datetime

gp = arcgisscripting.create(9.3)
gp.Overwriteoutput = 1
gp.workspace = "/usr/local/someworkspace"
gp.toolbox = "management"

Next, I'll create an empty feature class specifying the location (workspace), file, and type of geometry. The geometry can be POINT, MULTIPOINT, POLYGON, and POLYLINE. In this case, I'll use a POINT to represent a station. At this time I will also define the projection for the geometry.

gp.CreateFeatureclass( "/usr/local/someworkspace", "stations.shp", "POINT" )
coordsys = "Coordinate Systems/Geographic Coordinate Systems/North America/North American Datum 1983.prj"
gp.defineprojection( "stations.shp", coordsys )

Now I need to define the structure of the feature class. When I created the feature class above I defined it with the POINT geometry. So the structure is already partially defined with a Shape field. What's left is to create fields to hold the station specific structure.

gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "STATION_ID", "LONG", "", "", "10", "", "", "REQUIRED", "" )
gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "SCAC", "TEXT", "", "", "4", "", "", "REQUIRED", "" )
gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "FSAC", "TEXT", "", "", "4", "", "", "REQUIRED", "" )
...
gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "LATITUDE", "DOUBLE", "19", "10", "12", "", "", "REQUIRED", "" )
gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "LONGITUDE", "DOUBLE", "19", "10", "12", "", "", "REQUIRED", "" )
gp.AddField_management( "stations.shp", "LAST_UPD", "DATE" )

At this point I have a shapefile with a feature class based upon the station schema. Before adding data I must create a cursor to access the file. The Geoprocessor provides methods to create three types of cursors - insert, update, and search. Since I am creating a shapefile I will need an insert cursor.

cur = gp.InsertCursor( "/usr/local/someworkspace/stations.shp" )
pnt = gp.CreateObject("Point")

I've also created a Point object here that I will use repeatedly for each record's Shape field in the feature class.

Oracle

Now that the output structure is ready, I need some input. To query the Oracle table I will use the cx_Oracle module. This is one of the reasons why I liked the Python solution - accessing Oracle was trivial. Simply create a connection, create a cursor to loop over, and execute the query.

dbConn = cx_Oracle.connect( username, pw, url )
dbCur = dbConn.cursor()
dbCur.execute( "SELECT * FROM RAIL_STATIONS" )

Now I can start building the shapefile. The process will loop over the database cursor and create a new feature class row, populating the row with the rail station data.

for dbRow in dbCur:

    pnt.x = dbRow[10]
    pnt.y = dbRow[9]

    pnt.id = dbRow[0]

    fcRow = cur.NewRow()
    fcRow.shape = pnt
    
    fcRow.STATION_ID = dbRow[0]
    fcRow.SCAC = dbRow[1]
    fcRow.FSAC = dbRow[2]
    fcRow.SPLC = dbRow[3]
    ...
    fcRow.LATITUDE = dbRow[9]
    fcRow.LONGITUDE = dbRow[10]
    fcRow.LAST_UPD = dbRow[11].strftime( "%x %X" )

    cur.InsertRow(fcRow)

dbCur.close()
dbConn.close()
del cur, dbCur, dbConn

First, the Point object created above is used to populate the feature class's Shape field. However, before doing that the InsertCursor is used to create a new row in the feature class (this acts as a factory and only creates a new row object - it does not insert the object into the feature class). Once I have the new row from the database I can populate all of the fields in the feature class row. Finally, I insert the row into the cursor (actually, the final part is the clean up).

One problem that took me a while to figure out (since I am new to ESRI and Python) was handling dates. My first pass at populating the LAST_UPD field was to use fcRow.LAST_UPD = dbRow[11]. Consistent, right? When I did this I got the following error:

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "createStationShp.py", line 72, in 
    feat.LAST_UPD = row[11]
ValueError: Row: Invalid input value for setting

After searching around I figured out that what was coming back from Oracle was a datetime.datetime type that was not being accepted by the feature class date type. I found that I could convert the datetime.datetime to a string and ESRI would do the date conversion properly ("%x %X" just takes whatever the date and time formats are and outputs them as strings).

Conclusion

That's it. Now I have a shapefile that I can use with my ESRI File Geodatabase architecture. The next step is to swap out shapefiles when the stations data changes (which it does on a regular basis). Can this be done without recreating the ESRI service? Stay tuned.

References

Scripting your ArcGIS Geoprocessing Tasks (Part 1)
Scripting your ArcGIS Geoprocessing Tasks with Cursors (Part 2)
Oracle+Python
ESRI - Add Field (Data Management)
ESRI - Create Feature Class
Project basics

Geospatial Analytics using Teradata: Part I

2010-06-11T17:57:00.000-07:00

In October, I (along with a co-worker) will be giving a presentation at the Teradata PARTNERS conference. The topic will be on how Railinc uses Teradata for geospatial analytics. Since I did not propose the paper, write the abstract, or even work on geospatial analytics, I will be learning a lot during this process. So, to help with that education I will be sharing some thoughts in a series of blog posts.

To kick the series off, let me share the abstract that was originally proposed:

Linking location to information provides a new data dimension, a new precision, unlocking a huge potential in analytics. Geospatial data enables entirely new industry metrics, new insights, and better decision making. Railinc, as a trusted provider of IT services to the Rail Freight industry, is responsible for accurate and timely dissemination of more than 10 million rail events per day. This session provides an overview of how Railinc Business Analytics’ group has implemented Active Data Warehouse and Teradata GeoSpatial technologies to bring an unprecedented amount of new Rail Network insight. The real-time calculation of Geospatial metrics from rail events, has enabled Railinc to better assess; 1) Rail equipment utilization 2) repair patterns 3) geographic usage patterns, and other factors. All of which, afford insights that impact maintenance program decisions, component deployments, service designs and industry policy decisions.

Below is a first pass at an outline for the talk. It is preliminary and will most likely change over the coming months.

Describe Railinc's Teradata installation
Describe Railinc's source systems

Rail car movement events
Rail car Inventory
Rail car health
Commodity

Describe our ETL process
Explain the FRA geospatial rail track data

Track ownership complexity

Tie 1-4 together

Current state of car portal
Car Utilization analytics
Traffic pattern analytics

Lessons learned

Study of different routing algorithms
Data quality issues

Item 5 is the problem - how can we tie our source systems together with geospatial data in a compelling way? One idea is a portal that provides information about the current state of a rail car. How would geospatial data fit into this portal? Location is the most obvious answer, but is there something more interesting? What about an odometer reading for a rail car? Outside of the portal there are ideas around car utilization and traffic patterns. I like the last two but I need to learn more about them.

These are some issues/questions I need to answer over the coming months. Along the way I plan on sharing information about implementation details, possible business cases, and any problems I come across.

The Good Old Days

2009-04-13T19:41:00.001-07:00

The following was sent to the Raleigh News & Observer:

Paul Krugman is pining for the old days when the banking industry was boring. His analysis is flawed, however, because the New Deal Era regulations were changed, not because of some conspiracy, but because they were dysfunctional in the face of 1970s inflation.

One aspect of the regulations limited what banks could pay out as interest on deposits. In an era when prices are rising 10% a year, a bank paying out 3% can't compete with other investments. It was the Carter Administration (yes, the Carter Administration) that first acted to undo the vaunted New Deal regulations allowing more competition among financial institutions.

The current regulatory environment may not be optimal, but going back to a highly regulated system isn't the panacea that we are being sold.

Wartime stimulus?

2009-03-01T19:21:00.000-08:00

Sent to the Raleigh News & Observer

I'm confused. Recently, letter writers as well as last year's Nobel Laureate in economics have pointed to the experience during World War II to justify an expensive stimulus package to get the economy out of recession. We have been told that the wartime spending created a thriving economy.

Yet, Sally Buckner, writing about her experience growing up during the war, said of the time, “Americans adapted to rationing of food, tires and gasoline; saved bacon grease, scrap metal and aluminum foil.” Hence my confusion. How is it that the government spending during World War II created a supposedly wonderful economy, yet citizens had to endure such privations? I am not doubting the veracity of Ms. Buckner's comments because her experience is backed by historical evidence. (In fact, she neglected to mention that it was also a time of wage and price controls.)

Historical evidence also suggests that it wasn't until after the war, when government spending was cut dramatically, that the economy returned to one that would be considered normal (i.e., production and consumption driven by consumers and not wartime needs). This occurred even as certain economists were claiming that the reduced spending would cause another Great Depression.

Whatever

2009-02-18T19:39:00.000-08:00

Irony
The government will get you coming and going
A politician not living up to a campaign promise. Yawn.
So, if I'm normally frugal and should start spending when should I stop spending? If I'm normally a spendthrift and should save now, when should I start spending again? If I am neither what should I do? And economists wonder why they are looked upon with such contempt.

Whatever

2009-02-11T17:40:00.000-08:00

I'm confused. How do I determine whether or not this type of relationship is good or bad?
At least something good is coming from this economic downturn
So, Barney isn't satisfied with enabling one boom, he'd like to start another
Shovel ready
For performance problems

Whatever

2009-02-04T15:38:00.000-08:00

Ancient graffiti
Great! Let's add stupidity to injury
What Michael Phelps should be saying
I know that sometimes hindsight is 20/20, but in this case foresight should have been 20/20
Online media will never threaten print media
Even Sith Lords need work
Arnold Kling makes the case for profits

The Visible and Invisible Hands

2009-02-01T15:18:00.000-08:00

The Visible Hand:

As President Obama and Congress barrel toward the latest emergency program to resuscitate the American economy, one question is looming over their search for a cure: Can the government fashion a fast and efficient economic stimulus while also seizing the moment to remake America?

For now, Mr. Obama and his aides are insisting they can accomplish both goals, following their mantra of using the urgency of the economic crisis to accomplish larger — and long-delayed — reforms that never garnered sufficient votes in ordinary times.

The Invisible hand:

All recessions have cultural and social effects, but in major downturns the changes can be profound. The Great Depression, for example, may be regarded as a social and cultural era as well as an economic one. And the current crisis is also likely to enact changes in various areas, from our entertainment habits to our health.

First, consider entertainment. Many studies have shown that when a job is harder to find or less lucrative, people spend more time on self-improvement and relatively inexpensive amusements. During the Depression of the 1930s, that meant listening to the radio and playing parlor and board games, sometimes in lieu of a glamorous night on the town. These stay-at-home tendencies persisted through at least the 1950s.

In today’s recession, we can also expect to turn to less expensive activities — and maybe to keep those habits for years. They may take the form of greater interest in free content on the Internet and the simple pleasures of a daily walk, instead of expensive vacations and N.B.A. box seats.

...

When all is said and done, something terrible has happened in the United States economy, and no one should wish for such an event. But a deeper look at the downturn, and the social changes it is bringing, shows a more complex picture.

In addition to trying to get out of the recession — our first priority — many of us will be making do with less and relying more on ourselves and our families. The social changes may well be the next big story of this recession.

Importance of Savings

2009-01-30T18:44:00.000-08:00

Letter sent to the Raleigh News & Observer

In a recent editorial, Paul Krugman continues his cheerleading for the economic stimulus package by disparaging the idea of tax cuts. He says that the money will simply be saved, but savings has an important social function – it provides capital that helps create a progressing economy and gives people resources to weather economic storms. It makes me wonder if Krugman really understands the nature of savings.

He also claims that "when it comes to economic stimulus, public spending provides much more bang for the buck than tax cuts." Even if this magic government multiplier idea is correct, is it really wise to attempt to maintain consumption at levels that many agreed were unsustainable during the boom? If Democrats are so eager to use this crisis to remake society, why not let society adjust to a new consumption/savings pattern that allows for sustainable growth?

Krugman wants to claim that arguments against the stimulus package are fraudulent. Some of them may be, but some of his claims in support of the package are baffling, especially coming from an economist.

Whatever

2009-01-28T16:23:00.000-08:00

The wish list for remaking society. "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." How lovely.
Here is a way to keep track of some of that "stimulation"
"Congress gave final approval on Tuesday to a civil rights bill providing women, blacks and Hispanics with powerful new tools to challenge pay discrimination in the workplace." No, just the same old tool - the gun.
Ok, here are some kudos
Star Wars told by someone who never saw Star Wars

Obama the Great

2009-01-21T17:38:00.000-08:00

The ~~inauguration~~ coronation of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States is done. While I can appreciate the significance and history of this moment, it seems that people need to be reminded that Obama is still mortal. Heck! Obama probably needs to be reminded that he is mortal.

Is it just me or has everyone come to believe that this man is omniscient, omnipotent, and every other omni-* you can think of? Every ill in the ~~country~~ ~~world~~ long history of human existence seems to have an Obama solution. I mean, how could you not get behind a man who will be able to definitively determine the champion of Division I College Football?

I think the history of his presidency is already in rough draft form and he will be considered one of the top four. He will be considered a great president because of his rhetoric, his ability to inspire people, and his “courage” to propose bold initiatives. If need be, the actual effects of his policies can be rationalized later by the court intellectuals.

It could be said that there is no way for Obama to rise to these high expectations, and that he is being set up for a big let down. I don't think, however, that the kind of mass orgasm we have seen over the past several months will be tempered by anything that will occur over the next few years. Like the gods of religion who continue to exist even in the face of the science that makes them irrelevant, the cult of Obama will outweigh any rational argument.

For how could any problem be the fault of Obama when he has staffed his administration with the brightest among us? Wise technocrats will be creating policy and the “right” people will now be in charge. Any difficulties we may face will inevitably be the result of some deficiency in ourselves.

Maybe I'm just too cynical. If so, Obama should be able to fix that as well.

Some other musings:

Alternate titles for this post: Omni-bama, The Great and Powerful Oz-bama, Oh, bama!

Failed Ideology

2009-01-08T20:01:00.000-08:00

Sent to the Raleigh News & Observer

In advocating Obama's stimulus package, Paul Krugman takes another swing at Milton Friedman by comparing Friedman's monetary theory to the fiscal policy theory of John Maynard Keynes (i.e., large-scale deficit spending by government). Krugman says that “[t]he failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time.” This does not logically follow, however, because the failure of one theory cannot prove the validity of another. Maybe both theories are wrong.

The evidence showing that the large-scale government spending of the 1930s did not get us out of the Depression should show that Keynes' theory was flawed. Claiming, as Krugman has done in the past, that it was the massive spending during World War II that ended the Depression is a flawed notion as well because a command-and-control economy of rationing, price controls, and military production is not economic prosperity. In fact, it wasn't until the dramatic drop in spending after war that the economy got back to normal.

Krugman has claimed that it was a failed ideology that got us into the current situation. I’m afraid that Krugman’s ideology may make matters even worse.

No Herbert Hoovers

2009-01-07T17:57:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman, in his quest to justify increased government spending, claims that “the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation’s economic future.” This statement, however, is deceptive because every year of the Hoover administration saw an increase in federal spending.

One program, in particular, that the Hoover administration created was the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. The RFC gave billions of dollars in aid to state and local governments, banks, railroads, farms, and other businesses. It also provided funds for public works projects.

Now, it is true that Hoover attempted to balance the budget, but he did so by raising taxes. Claiming that he “slashed spending” is deceptive, and coming from Paul Krugman, it is most likely purposefully deceptive.

HT: Steve Horwitz

Bad Economics

2008-11-16T18:54:00.000-08:00

I sent the following to the Raleigh News & Observer:

I know that it seems like common sense that the government should go on a spending spree now that consumers are becoming more frugal, but this is just bad economics even when it comes from a Nobel Laureate.

The "internal improvement" projects that are being called for must be paid for by taxpayers in some fashion. This will only crowd out private investment and prevent a more sustained recovery. Also, these projects will be allocated by the political process and not by consumer sovereignty. Without profit and loss considerations we will just be building bridges to anywhere.

We've just popped a bubble financed in part by private debt and irresponsibility. Let's not start another one with public debt that will burden the country for decades. Getting our houses in order, so to speak, both publicly and privately is needed now more than ever, even if it does mean short-term pain.

Whatever

2008-10-16T16:51:00.000-07:00

Unnecessary Greatest Hist albums
With apologies to Led Zeppelin, "though the names may change sometimes, money always reaches the power"
Oh geez...
Rock or Vote
Why we should let housing prices keep falling
"Socialism is good for thee but not for me"

Whatever

2008-10-08T17:32:00.000-07:00

So, why should I believe him now?
Radley Balko has some good incites into the recent McCain/Obama debate
The Dark Knight/Toy Story 2 Mashup
Earth from above
Markets in everything
Old school Star Wars
Credit crunch? What credit crunch? Maybe it is only the big, "well-connected" banks that need help. The sky is not falling.

Whatever

2008-10-01T17:28:00.000-07:00

Mark my words: the next bubble in the economy will be centered around 'green' technology. Green will be the dot-com of the next decade.
At least you will be able to enjoy your losses
Hey, I may be the center of the universe (ok, you may be too)
The first portable GPS device
The housing bubble easily understood
Health care in the U.S. vs in the U.K.
Homeland Security detects terrorist threats by reading your mind. They probably don't want to be reading the minds of the barefooted, personally violated people waiting in the long lines at the airport.
“Our advice to drivers is not to panic and not to top off their tanks.” I hate to tell you this, but higher prices work better.

Meltdown - Causes (cont.)

2008-09-28T11:46:00.001-07:00

Jeff Jacoby exposes Barney Frank's role in the bubble
Here is an article from the New York Times in 1999 showing Fannie Mae "easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders"
Of course, politicians bragged about the increase in home ownership when it benefited them. And why did Fannie Mae ease credit requirements? "The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer."
Many of those sub-prime mortgages went to minorities just like politicians wanted, but in 2001, politicians wanted it both ways - pressure the banks to make loans and sue the banks for pushing those loans
In 1997, Wachovia (then First Union) bragged about their involvement with the Community Reinvestment Act
More blame for Fannie and Freddie

However, political pressure can only go so far. If the means are not available, there is only so much credit that can be loaned out. That is where the Federal Reserve comes in via its loose monetary policy. Financial institutions were able to come up with creative ways to provide loans to high risk borrowers because credit was easily available (especially after the the 2000-2001 recession and 9/11).

Many people want to blame an era of laissez-faire capitalism for this mess because corporations were involved. It is not, however, "laissez-faire" when governments use corporations to enact egalitarian goals. That is probably best described as Corporate Socialism.

Meltdown - Regulations (cont.)

2008-09-24T18:53:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks I've heard and read the familiar refrain that our current financial meltdown is due to the wave of deregulation that began under the Reagan Administration. We are led to believe that Reagan swept in a laissez-faire philosophy that has created an unsustainable economy.

So I decided to look up some of the key pieces of legislation that were responsible for this wave of deregulation. What I found was interesting considering how the Left and the Right want to portray the history of the past 30 years.

Airline Deregulation Act of 1978
The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 to deregulate the trucking industry. When Carter signed the bill he said, "I have today signed into law S. 2245, the Motor Carrier Act of 1980. This is historic legislation. It will remove 45 years of excessive and inflationary Government restrictions and redtape. It will have a powerful anti-inflationary effect, reducing consumer costs by as much as $8 billion each year. And by ending wasteful practices, it will conserve annually hundreds of millions of gallons of precious fuel. All the citizens of our Nation will benefit from this legislation."
The Staggers Rail Act of 1980 to deregulate the rail industry
Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 - this was the first law to undo various aspects of Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (the favorite of many progressives)
Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 - this one was a Reagan initiative but it had broad Congressional support (including Democrat Charles Schumer). It was the next step in undoing Glass-Steagall.

Now, I don't want to get into the economic effects of these laws, either good or bad. Each particular case most likely involves subtleties that make them less than perfect free-market solutions. The point here is to show that blaming deregulation on a free-market ideology forced on the country by Reagan is just silly. Or you could just call Jimmy Carter a laissez-faire ideologue.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that all this is Jimmy Carter's fault. Nor am I saying anything about the Reagan Administration. All I want to show here is that the history of the past 30 years is not as simplistic as many "progressives" want us to believe.

Whatever

2008-09-24T14:45:00.000-07:00

As the state grows we all become criminals. I can't believe you have to have a license to own a TV! Oh, and check out number seven on the list.
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to pay taxes
Bailout spam
Wow! China is crowded
A good history of laissez-faire (or the lack thereof) in America
Obama promises to stop America's shitty jobs from going overseas (NB: bad language)
Property rights save the environment
Never ask a question to a live audience if you don't want to know the answer
Just pile it on

Meltdown - Causes

2008-09-23T18:56:00.000-07:00

Over the past several days I've read many theories on the causes of the current financial meltdown. Ranging from greed to too little regulation to too much regulation, everyone seems to have THE reason why we are in this mess.

This brings up something that I've learned over the years from the Austrian School of Economics and Ludwig von Mises in particular - and that is that history is complex. You can explain almost any theory by picking data points from history. To truly understand history, however, you must have a correct theory*. Now, I happen to agree with the Austrian view of economics, but that's not the point. The point is that anyone claiming to explain economic problems must have a logically consistent theory. Pointing to some past event and saying "Aha!" is not a valid argument. Why that past event had the consequences it did can only be explained by good theory.

I could be wrong, but I personally believe that the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle best explains the situation we are in now. Most other arguments I am hearing tend to lack some underlying mechanism that fuels the boom which leads to the bust. The Austrian Theory gives us that fuel in the guise of monetary expansion. Unless something is done about that underlying mechanism, we will continue to suffer from economic crises.

Anyway, here are some good articles about the current mess that aren't necessarily Austrian:

Russ Roberts takes a look at tax policy changes in the 1990s. Be sure to check out other recent articles by Russ at CafeHayek - he is sorting out his thoughts on this matter.
What role did Fannie and Freddie play? And did Bush try to regulate the FMs only to be thwarted by Congressional Democrats?
Arnold Kling sees causes in both private markets and government regulators. BTW, EconLog is another good blog to keep an eye on.
Sheldon Richman looks at greed and "lack of regulation" arguments
Carpe Diem looks at the difference between Canadian and U.S. regulations during a previous economic meltdown

* See Ludwig von Mises' Theory and History

Meltdown - Regulations

2008-09-22T17:07:00.000-07:00

Many writers have blamed the current financial crisis on too little regulation of the market. In particular, they have blamed the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act that was enacted in 1933 in the midst of another financial meltdown. That Act created, among other things, a wall between investment and commercial banking. It is claimed that the Act's repeal allowed for the creation of “mega-banks” which, we are led to believe, precipitated the current crisis.

However, what we have seen thus far is the failure of two government-sponsored mortgage institutions (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), an insurance company (AIG), and two investment houses (Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros.) - none of which would have fallen under the Glass-Steagall regulations. In fact, those companies that have both investment and commercial banking operations are so far weathering the current storm.

Megan McArdle has some thoughts on Glass-Steagall as well.

Tyler Cowen also examines the idea that there was too little regulation. In fact, he says, the regulation was just ineffective.

[F]inancial regulation has produced a lot of laws and a lot of spending but poor priorities and little success in using the most important laws to head off a disaster. The pattern is reminiscent of how legislators often seem more interested in building new highways — which are highly visible projects — than in maintaining old ones.

He also sends a warning about rushing into creating new regulations:

[I]f you hear a call for more regulation, without a clear explanation of why regulation failed in the past, beware. The odds are that we’ll get additional regulation but with even less accountability and even less focus on solving our very real economic problems.

Whatever

2008-09-17T17:46:00.000-07:00

How can you not love dogs?
I've always loved good slight of hand card tricks. Ed Brayton links to some YouTube videos of Ricky Jay doing some amazing stuff.
The future is so disappointing
Ah! What would a new technology be without a call for "government action." This quote is priceless: "I do think government has an almost infinite ability to screw up things when they can't see the future."
I wonder if this school teaches bad acting as well
Just cut their pay
When ~~markets~~ governments fail, ~~government~~ markets must step in

Great Gig in the Sky

2008-09-15T17:59:00.000-07:00

In memory of Richard Wright.

"Gouging for greed"

2008-09-15T14:46:00.000-07:00

The top story on the local news today was how North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper was issuing subpoenas to seven local gas stations accused of "price gouging" over the weekend. Cooper said that "gouging for greed will not be tolerated in North Carolina." My wife nearly got spaghetti sauce spat upon her face when I heard that comment. It is depressing that an adult in a position of authority could utter such an inane comment. It is even more depressing that there are people out there who buy this inanity and cheer him on.

More importantly, however, was the second story that showed some stations running out of gas over the weekend. The reporter in the story said that the stations had "reasonable" prices. Could there be a correlation between the first story and this one? The stations that ran out of gas tried to limit customers to $20 worth of gas. This form of rationing is apparently legal albeit less effective.

One more thing on "greed." With the recent problems in the financial sector and, of course, the gouging controversy, many pundits are talking about greed as if it is a characteristic solely of businessmen. The late Milton Friedman had the best response to this nonsense.

Who's gouging who?

2008-09-12T18:13:00.000-07:00

Wow! I was driving home from work today and noticed that gas prices had jumped dramatically. Apparently people are panicking that Hurricane Ike will cause some serious disruptions in gasoline supplies.

North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper was on the news saying that gas stations will be prosecuted if they "gouge." There were people waiting in line for gas being interviewed saying that it wasn't fair that the stations were raising prices. Oh, but it's fair for you idiots to rush out suck up all the gasoline!

Here is a quote from Cooper:

"I encourage gas stations to avoid panic price increases and consumers to avoid panic fill-ups."

Words have no teeth Mr. Cooper - higher prices do. In situations like this raising prices is the best way to stop people from panicking.

What would an episode like this be without the following argument:

"That's not what they paid for it. It just seems to me they shouldn't raise (the price) until they have to pay for it"

That was someone waiting in line complaining that the station shouldn't be allowed to raise the price on gas they bought at a lower price. Oy vey! This is why a knowledge of basic economics is so important.

Stations have to make sure they have a steady supply of gasoline so that they can attract customers. If their tanks are empty they get no business (or reduced business). With the hurricane causing uncertainty around national supply chains, stations need to make sure they have some supply to last during the temporary crisis. The price they paid for a good in the past is irrelevant when it comes to decisions they need to make in the present and near future.

Phil Gramm was right for the wrong reasons - we are a nation of whiners.

Take the "gasoline shortages" quiz at CafeHayek.

Whatever

2008-09-10T17:31:00.000-07:00

If you are reading this then the LHC worked. You might want to keep checking, though.
30 nanoseconds?! But I want it now!
The Darwin Stain
When ~~markets~~ governments fail the ~~government~~ market must step in. "[I]t was proving increasingly difficult for Britons to get anything beyond basic dental care from Britain's National Health Service." (HT: Carpe Diem)
It is a shame that this question even has to be asked
Yeah, Google is soooo bad for consumers. Oh wait, antitrust is not about consumers.
Wow! Is anything legal in Britain? At least you can still vote with your feet.

Whatever

2008-09-03T17:09:00.000-07:00

The inhumanity of some people
Robert Samuelson reports on contrary evidence regarding American living standards. I think there is a lesson to be learned here about drawing conclusions from aggregate numbers in a diverse and dynamic society. (HT: CafeHayek)
More bureaucracy, more spending, and more crony capitalism all in the name of science. I am still trying to figure out what Obama means by "change."
When you devalue the currency, people go primitive
Art by paint ball
Here's an investment tip for you...stay away from renewable energy companies (Investment tips are for sarcastic purposes only. Blogger is not responsible for your money problems)
Don't laugh, they think they are dying
The Libertarian Party - where ex-Republicans go to get mocked

Un-Conventional

2008-09-02T16:03:00.001-07:00

I didn't watch Barack Obama's acceptance speech last week and I have no intention to watch John McCain's this week. How people can get all giddy about such things is beyond me. What scares me the most is the hagiographic praise that is thrust upon these men (especially Obama). Why does it scare me? I think H.L. Mencken said it best:

"It is the popular theory, at least in America, that monarchism is a curse fastened upon the common people from above - that the monarch saddles it upon them without their consent and against their will. The theory is without support in the facts. Kings are created, not by kings, but by the people. They visualize one of the ineradicable needs of all third-rate men... and that is the need of something to venerate, to bow down to, to follow and obey."

As I said in a previous blog post, "creating myths around men who wield the power of government only distorts history and turns us into what John Adams feard - a nation of men, not of laws."

HT: Don Boudreaux for the Mencken quote.

Whatever

2008-08-27T17:22:00.000-07:00

The impedance mismatch between the wishes of planners and the reality on the ground. "The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not."
Government bailouts work both ways it seems. One of the big problems with this trend is that it won't be true privatization, and in a few years unfettered capitalism will take the blame.
On Biden
What's that old line about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
Andy, Fannie, and Freddie

Whatever

2008-08-20T17:15:00.000-07:00

The high price of energy is a political, not economic, problem. "Windfall" profit taxes and consumer subsidies, i.e. more politics, will only exacerbate the problem. And along with those economic inefficiencies comes corruption.
Um, whoops?
Ok, I take back what I said last week about science making Science Fiction boring
Sometimes you win by just letting your enemies be themselves

Whatever

2008-08-13T16:56:00.000-07:00

Yes, let's give a stupid movie that will literaly have 15 minutes of fame more attention that it deserves
Science is making Science Fiction boring
Ah, rent seeking at its finest (pun intended, of course). So, is the problem here that businesses are lobbying those who will attain power or the power itself?
This is why Obama was marginally appealing to me
Man! If you can't rely on the "Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil" shibboleth what can you rely on

Whatever

2008-08-06T16:01:00.000-07:00

Obama wants to tax (i.e., reduce) the production of and subsidise (i.e., increase) the demand for oil. People, this is not hard: reducing the supply of or increasing the demand for a good, ceteris paribus, means the price will increase. Encouraging both as a plan to ease higher prices should be a sign of insanity (or political prowess).
What's the big deal? We weren't using the Fourth Amendment anyway.
Oooh! LHC is sexy (in a sciency sort of way)
An interesting video explaining why, even if you are 100% innocent, you should never talk to the police (HT: Bruce Schneier)
I agree with Perry's comment at the end of this blog post, but it won't be long before it is considered anti-social
More significant than the iPhone?? How dare you say such things!
The food industry, in an effort to avoid dealing with a problem itself, calls for more regulation. "More important than the financial loss is the loss of consumer confidence," says an industry representative. Well, getting consumers confident in your product is a cost you should have to bear. Calling for government to regulate makes you sound noble, but it has the added "benefit," I'm sure, of pushing out marginal competitors.
Don't think that raising the minimum wage had no part is bringing this and this about

Whatever

2008-07-30T15:30:00.000-07:00

This is all we as libertarians ask. Instead we get this mess. And have I mentioned that markets work?
Radley Balko asks some good questions of McCain and Obama
A "political air show" (HT: The Agitator)
Cue the conspiracy nuts. First we had the "Face on Mars" now the "Footprint on Titan."
Sanity in Singapore
Take a deep breath -- and thank Mt. Everest?
We need more cow bell

Big Government is Big Oil

2008-07-24T17:09:00.000-07:00

I sent the following to the Raleigh News & Observer:

Tuesday's front page story entitled “Big Oil spends to jack up stock” scrutinized international oil companies for business decisions made with their earned revenue. I was wondering if that same scrutiny will be used to examine the expenditures of those entities that control roughly 90% of the world's proven oil reserves. I am, of course, referring to governments around the world. I am not going to hold my breath, however, because we all know that expenditures on socialistic welfare programs are beyond scrutiny, while any form of profit is per se evil.

It is ironic that the term “Big Oil” is applied to entities that are puny in comparison to those that actually control oil. In reality Big Government is Big Oil.

Here are some examples of Big Government mismanagement of oil.

The original article that I am replying to is pretty sensationalist to begin with. It is obviously trying to stir up some controversy around how oil companies disperse their profits.

What is the proper distribution of revenue? Hell if I know. But if the oil companies are making the 'wrong' decisions then profits won't be a problem for them in the future, and idiot reporters won't have to worry about writing sensationalist claptrap.

Whatever

2008-07-23T17:56:00.000-07:00

Just avoid smalltalk all together
It's always fun to watch central banks blame their ineptitude on businesses
How to stop a sequel
Servitude is coming back into fashion. "I solemnly swear that I will never take part in any involuntary civilian service at the behest of the federal government, regardless of the consequences."
Maybe this technology would be cost effective (i.e., profitable) if water prices were allowed to reflect reality
A Nudge to fix the wrong problem

Whatever

2008-07-16T17:40:00.000-07:00

This is sarcasm, but the way monetary and fiscal policy in this country are run it could easily be reality
I'm hungry for some watermelon. Could I borrow your umbrella?
I can't wait to see the games that use these Wii attachments
While Congress fumes about oil prices, those prices are trying to tell us something. Maybe what they are trying to tell us is that governments around the world are mismanaging oil production. Yes, I said governments. After all, 77% of proven oil reserves are controlled by a nationalized entity.

Whatever

2008-07-09T17:07:00.000-07:00

Check out the new use for the Segway (scroll down about halfway)
Some good quotes from P.J. O'Rourke
Ahh! So it ain't so!
Reverse Graffiti
And you thought a night at the opera seemed to last forever
I knew playing Dig Dug would benefit humanity
So, does this mean that if you vote for McCain you hate people?
"The stimulus check was a way for some people to entertain themselves."

Money and Power

2008-07-06T18:24:00.000-07:00

Robert Frank, in a New York Times piece (free, annoying registration may be required), spews the typical liberal pabulum regarding campaign finance reform. I won't comment on the entire piece, but I want to say something about the general theme: money corrupting politics.

Just because our representatives are elected by a majority of the population and sit in the seats of power in Washington, doesn’t make them omniscient. It is silly to believe that just because they are not influenced by money that their decisions would be more just and wise. Sure, the policies would be different, but we are still dealing with mere mortals. They would have to be experts in economics, science, law, history, medicine, technology, etc. to govern as they do now. Only if we scale down the size of government dramatically will this arrangement even be remotely possible. But, at that point there would be no need for campaign finance legislation because government would not have the heavy hand it does now nor would it have anything to sell.

But why do we need to limit contributions anyway? If we are assuming that these people we send to Washington are wise enough to determine the ‘right’ legislation if they were only free from the corrupting influence of money, why are they not wise enough now to just not be corrupted by the money in the first place? In other words, if they are so easily corrupted now, maybe they aren't fit govern at any time.

It could be said that we would want politicians to only get influence from the experts in the respective fields. But who are the experts? Do all experts agree? Who will be the arbiter if they don’t? Again, with a small government limited to a specific set of tasks, this could possibly work (I still have my doubts, however).

The other question we need to ask is how is it possible to prevent conflicts of interest? We are a nation of 300 million and we have different interests and wants. If government is reduced to a fraction of its current size this might be possible, but when government spends $3 trillion and has its tentacles in every aspect of our lives there are going to be conflicts of interest when it comes to how to spend that money and wield that power.

Lastly, I would like to comment on a specific quote in the article. After begrudgingly admitting that money can't be completely eliminated from the political process, Frank writes this: "The harsh reality is that free speech and good government are conflicting goals." When I first read that statement I had to stop and say "Wow!" Free speech is now a "goal" - not an inalienable right of the individual, mind you - a goal that can be negotiated like all other issues in government. Maybe this is why so many people want to buy influence. Maybe this is why so many people need to buy influence.

Let me use Mr. Frank's language to close: free speech and big government are conflicting goals. In fact, any individual right and big government are conflicting goals.

Solutions?

2008-07-06T07:06:00.001-07:00

Thomas Sowell once said that "there are no solutions...there only trade-offs." We are learning that lesson good and hard today.

Little Brother

2008-07-04T18:51:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Cory Doctorow's Little Brother. I highly recommend it to those who like stories about technology and using technology in a clandestine manner. It reminded me a lot of a book I read a long time ago by Clifford Stoll called The Cuckoo's Egg. The books have different plots (in Stoll's book the hacker is the bad guy), but in both you get a small glimpse into the hacker culture.

Even if you don't like stories about technology, however, you should read Little Brother. It's an inspiring tale about a young man not willing to let the government get away with tyranny even if it means his own freedom.

One interesting aspect in my experience reading this book was following along with Google Maps Street View. I was able to follow the action in the streets of San Francisco (a city that I've been to twice but really didn't get to see). Try it, it's fun.

Obama on Iraq...for now

2008-07-04T18:28:00.000-07:00

I guess I should have seen this coming. Oh wait, I did. So, for those of you who were worried that I might vote for Obama (if I was really, really forced to), don't worry.

Whatever

2008-07-02T18:16:00.000-07:00

All new technologies should have a Star Wars demo
If this is a joke it sure the hell ain't funny (HT: Dispatches)
Some sanity on 'cap-and-trade' schemes
#51. They don't sit around reading lists about how to be successful
Obama panders and panders and panders
What can onions teach us about oil prices?

Whatever

2008-06-25T17:31:00.000-07:00

I love this idea of "competing" tax plans. It's like competition between McDonald's and Burger King - the differences are marginal and they both suck.
Oooh, save me from Google, I'm so oppressed
Jason Kuznicki does a great job at debunking the idea that the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Habeas rights will lead to a "flood" of lawsuits. And here is some good stuff from George Will, as well.
The Web Time Forgot (annoying, free registration may be required - try BugMeNot)
Is labeling menus with nutritional content a good idea? Maybe not.

Oh Obama!

2008-06-23T16:20:00.000-07:00

I know I've blogged in the past that if forced to I would vote for Obama. But now it is becoming harder for me to even make that concession.

Obama has given his support to a bill that will, in Glenn Greenwald's words, legalize "many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001." Here is the way he justifies his decision:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. . . .

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act. . . It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives -– and the liberty –- of the American people.

First of all, what if you are not elected President? You just supported a bill that you basically admit has problems that could affect the liberty of the American people. How will you feel in January if John McCain gets that power? You shouldn't support legislation that has as a contingency the need for the "right" people enforcing said legislation.

Secondly, I thought I had a Constitution to protect my liberties, not your work ethic.

My very limited support for Obama was largely based on his rhetoric that he would get us out of Iraq. Now I'm thinking that if he is elected President we will get a statement from him next January which begins thusly,

Given the grave threats that we face, our military must continue to be deployed ... blah blah blah.

Whatever!

Whatever

2008-06-18T18:41:00.000-07:00

Carbon Nanotubes seem to be the duct tape of science
Now this is my kind of town
Oil 2.0
Time to break out the aerosol cans again
Oh how cute. Cuba is joining the Twentieth Century.
Yeah, you know you're curious
This is just unfortunate
I should keep my witty comments to myself on this one because my wife reads this blog (but I'd love one of these)

No Win

2008-06-17T18:51:00.000-07:00

We are now going to have the courts flooded with so-called...habeas corpus suits against the government, whether it be about the diet, whether it be about the reading material. And we are going to be bollixed up in a way that is terribly unfortunate because we need to go ahead and adjudicate these cases."

Those were the words of John McCain in response to the recent Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo Bay detainees. It is also a big reason why I can't vote for him this year.

Habeas Corpus is not about filing suits to complain about diet or reading material; the term literally means 'you have the body'. It is a basic right, not of Americans, but of all human beings to challenge their imprisonment in front of a neutral party. For McCain, a Senator and Presidential candidate, to make such a silly statement is disturbing.

I shouldn't be surprised, though. I've always disliked McCain because of his stance on civil liberties. His support for ~~anti-First Amendment~~ campaign finance regulation really told me all I needed to know about him.

Oh, BTW, here is one of many reasons why I can't vote for Obama this year either. Surprise, surprise, he'll raise taxes.

Little Pink Houses

2008-06-16T17:53:00.000-07:00

People of Cary unite! Rise up against those who would allow home values to not soar ever so skyward! Down with the powers who do nothing to free us from the pain we suffer when prospective buyers avert their eyes!

The Colorist class, with their disdain for the historical progress of drab, must no longer be allowed to offend the Beige class. Talk of 'rights' is a polycolorist tactic which should be looked upon with a blank stare, and disregarded as if not even mentioned.

Polycolorism, after all, is just a superstructure foisted upon society at the behest of the Colorists with the full complicity of their pawns in power. We must break the chains that bind us to this superstructure so that history can pass into the Age of Drabness.

Rise up! Or succumb to the Rainbow.

Whatever

2008-06-11T17:45:00.000-07:00

Surprise yourself!
Markets adapt, government exacerbates (HT: EconLog). More of the same.
i cn se whi she hat a sezur
Gee, raising the minimum wage is hurting unskilled workers. Who'd thought that?
Minesweeper, The Movie
Man-made Global Shaking?
Goosh!

Whatever

2008-06-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

Another reason why Wal-Mart is one of the greatest anti-poverty forces in history
Neat stuff for space geeks (like me)
This is utterly disgusting. Check out the sign - "Find out when you should die." (HT: Coyote Blog)
I beg your pardon?
The 100 Greatest Guitar Songs of All Time (Purple Rain!?! in the top 20)
Can you really love your country? "Insisting on the alleged virtue of loving one’s country mainly serves to give those in power a blank check."

The Religion of Politics

2008-06-02T15:57:00.000-07:00

[I recently finished Bryan Caplan's The Myth of the Rational Voter. In this and future posts I will provide my chapter-by-chapter notes.]

Beyond the Miracle of Aggregation

Voter ignorance is a product of natural human selfishness, not a transient cultural aberration.
- Bryan Caplan

Caplan explains the Aggregation concept which says that individual voter ignorance is canceled out over the large population of voters. His main thesis, however, shows that this only applies if there isn't systematic ignorance throughout the population (or the voters don't make systematic errors).

He asks the question: Are voter errors systematic on questions of direct political relevance? He answers yes, and lays out a set of biases that voters seem to hold. These are

Antimarket bias
Antiforeign bias
Make-work bias
Pessimistic bias

We will expand on these biases in future posts.

Caplan then goes on to talk about how politics is a form of religion: "Political/economic ideology is the religion of modernity." People find comfort in politics as they do with religion, and some of the same passions are exhibited as well. He gives the comparison of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages and totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century. I've often made the comparison between socialism and religion. Caplan, however, does not make this comparison himself - it's nationalism and social revolutions that he is concerned with.

Keeping with the theme of religion, Caplan shows how voters can afford to be ideological. In a democracy voters do not pay the "full price" for their beliefs because the odds of one vote having a substantial influence on policy diminishes with the growing voter base. "The price of ideological loyalty is close to zero," so people can easily partake in ideological delusions. "Faith is a shortcut to belief."

In a democracy, "negative externalities irrelevant to individual behavior add up to a large collective misfortune." People will rationalize their errors, however, going so far as to deify those who encourage their delusions; victimizing those who destroy those delusions.

All this means is that in the end democracies fall short because voters get the foolish policies they ask for.

Whatever

2008-05-28T17:41:00.000-07:00

An interesting way to use a courier service
Three small dots were never so impressive
And I thought those people with Bluetooth phone headsets were annoying!
Another reason why voting this year will be pointless. Neither candidate understands the the concept of individual liberty.

The Price of Eyeballs

2008-05-21T17:20:00.001-07:00

On a recent episode of EconTalk, Russ Roberts interviewed Chris Anderson who was claiming "many delightful things in the world are increasingly free." This is supposed to be some new economics that businesses need to conform to or die. I'm skeptical.

The economics behind this phenomena is actually interesting, and Fernando Herrera-Gonzalez over at the Mises Institute I think explains it incredibly well. The following is where it clicked for me:

Google offers us free use of their search engine and other web applications. Why? Because that is how Google attracts our attention to its advertisements. Google doesn't sell its online services to us; it sells an audience to its actual costumers, the advertisers. Google is buying our time and selling it wholesale. As time is a scarce resource, and time (and attention) demand is increasing as a result of fierce competition on the Internet, Google has to pay us ever more, according to the law of diminishing returns. This payment is made not in terms of money, but as storage and process capacity. That's why Google keeps increasing its "free" offering to us, its providers, in terms of, e.g., storage capacity for e-mail accounts.

You see, we are not Google's customers. Google pays us for our eyeballs with free disk space and applications so that they can attract their true customers - advertisers.

Now Microsoft is actually making this even more blatant. They plan on paying cash to users who purchase goods found using their Live Search engine.

The interesting thing is that is this is not new. Broadcast television has operated on this model for over fifty years - they pay for your eyeballs with entertainment so that they can attract their true customers.

Wife bloggin

2008-05-16T18:14:00.000-07:00

Whatever

2008-05-14T17:00:00.000-07:00

Hmmm...and they wonder why businesses must pay extortion money to politicians
Ok, but what if you are both?
When I saw this I nearly ruined my keyboard with drool
Ok, maybe this is a little too much Star Wars for one post...nah! There can never be too much Star Wars!
The corrupting influence of rock and roll
You can bury me in the R2-D2 DVD player
Don't ever try to do something nice for a stranger. It may be illegal. (HT: Coyote Blog)
Stupid people shouldn't be activists (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars)
This says it all (HT: Carpe Diem)

Oh Hillary!

2008-05-06T17:51:00.000-07:00

So I see that Hillary Clinton doesn't care too much for economists:

"I'm not going to put my lot in with economists," Clinton said when asked to name an economist who backed her proposal.

"We've got to get out of this mind-set where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans."

I'm confused. Is she part of the "faith-based" or "reality-based" community?

Thanks to Arnold Kling at EconLog for the link. Also, his cohort Bryan Caplan has this intriguing view on why Hillary would be harmless as president. In summary, she wouldn't get much done because people hate her so much. Hillary, Divisiveness we can believe in!

Who is John Alpha?

2008-04-22T18:08:00.000-07:00

If you like science fiction and/or suspense thrillers, I highly recommend the 7th Son Trilogy by J.C. Hutchins. I just finished listening to the last book and I find myself wishing for more. It has clones, blood, computers, government conspiracies, blood, international mayhem, blood, oil, and more. Oh, and blood!

Do yourself a favor and go to iTunes now and download Book One to your iPod (or use whatever feeble mp3 player you find yourself having to cope with).

Whatever

2008-04-05T15:08:00.000-07:00

Paying taxes is patriotic? Boy, have we come a long way!
Yeah, I know I said that if I had to vote then I would probably vote for Obama, but his pandering and economic ignorance is really why I can't vote for him (HT: Q&O)
"You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon?"
An Obama-gasm
If you can't laugh at Manifest Destiny what can you laugh at?
The Twenty-First Century's Nineteenth Century problem
More socialized health care problems in the UK. And one of our own.

Solutions that aren't

2008-03-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

Why do I not look to government to solve environmental problems? Two recent news items should help explain.

First, Time Magazine is reporting on the disaster that is ethanol.

Even cellulosic ethanol made from switchgrass, which has been promoted by eco-activists and eco-investors as well as by President Bush as the fuel of the future, looks less green than oil-derived gasoline.

...

[T]he basic problem with most biofuels is amazingly simple, given that researchers have ignored it until now: using land to grow fuel leads to the destruction of forests, wetlands and grasslands that store enormous amounts of carbon.

What has been a dirty little secret for years is finally becoming common knowledge. Yet, we still subsidize and encourage ethanol production.

The second item appeared today in the Raleigh News & Observer and deals with the disposal of Compact Fluorescent (CF) light bulbs (those new bulbs that you will be forced to purchase in a few years).

Disposal options: Don't throw fluorescents in the trash. The light will break and release mercury. In a landfill, it could contaminate the ground. If you must throw a burned-out CFL into the trash, seal it first in two plastic bags to prevent leakage.

The preferred method is to take CFLs to a recycling facility or hazardous waste facility.

So let me get this straight, I'm not supposed to dispose of the bulbs in the usual way because I will be contaminating the environment with mercury. Instead, I should drive to a central recycling facility to dispose of these bulbs, thereby contaminating the environment with carbon dioxide from my car.

Whatever!

Dog Blogging

2008-03-24T19:41:00.000-07:00

Whatever

2008-03-23T19:15:00.000-07:00

Ha! Unintended my behind!
It's Easter, so it must be time for Peeps
Holding the sun
Looks like a dog, sounds like a big ass bee
What did you do at work today?

More on Obama

2008-03-20T16:24:00.000-07:00

I listened to Barack Obama's recent speech on race and was impressed - it was philosophical and nuanced. As much as I don't like politicians I do like listening to people who have a gift for speech and who speak with depth on serious issues.

I'm not going to say much more about it because I think Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty nails it. Here's how he sums it up:

I'm thrilled, because after nearly eight years of bumbling belligerence, and of government by catchy phrases badly delivered, finally someone seems to understand that the American people don’t enjoy being talked down to. This is — finally — nuance without fuzziness.

I'm wary, because Obama's program really is just more of the same frank, old-fashioned big-government liberalism. It still makes me cringe, even after nearly eight years of hypocritical, new-fashioned big-government conservatism. The Bush administration has proven the importance of labels: Call something conservative, and it becomes acceptable to a wide swath of the population, no questions asked. Even if it can't at all be distinguished from LBJ-style war-and-welfare liberalism. I hope that once they are out of power, the Republicans will finally abandon their recent change of direction.

Read the whole thing.

Like Jason, if I had to vote then I would probably vote for Obama - the two alternatives are that bad. But I still plan on sitting this one out.

Whatever

2008-03-12T17:48:00.000-07:00

Umm...What!?
George Bush then and now
Some people have waaaay too much time on their hands!
Gee, a government subsidized industry not living up to expectations. How surprising!
Only if!
No, I'm sorry, it just wouldn't be the same.
Those damn Washingtonians, "they took our jobs!"
Apparently, 2% of the people in England say they are "put off" by the price of prescription drugs (roughly $14...$14!!!). So, the solution is to have "free" drugs for everyone. There is so much to say, but....whatever!

Money, Knowledge, and Power

2008-03-09T17:32:00.000-07:00

I tend to ignore those who repeat the blather about how money corrupts the political process. The phrase, like many repeated in the political arena, seems almost meaningless because almost everyone uses it. Being the cynic that I am, I tend to roll my eyes when I hear someone use that phrase even if I'm supposed to think that they are some intellectual spouting some deep political insight.

Larry Lessig, a Stanford law professor, is using this "money corrupts politics" idea as somewhat of a centerpiece for his Change Congress campaign. A recent blog posting on Wired.com briefly explains the current buzz around Lessig's movement. I'd like to comment on some of his statements in order develop my point about political corruption.

First, Lessig is quoted as saying "Money corrupts the process of reasoning...They [legislators] get a sixth sense of how what they do might affect how they raise money." Again, being the cynic that I am I would question whether politicians "reason" about any piece of legislation that crosses their desk (e.g., the PATRIOT ACT). Nonetheless, this statement begs the question: What are legislators doing that would cause them to have to worry about how they raise money?

Let me move on to his second statement: "Lawmakers need to be free from a system that requires them to constantly raise money in order to free them to simply think about how to craft good public policy." I could go along with this if we had a government of limited scope; a government that didn't meddle in the affairs of other nations; a government that wasn't involved in the birth, eduction, business, pleasure, and retirement of the citizens it is supposed to obey; but we don't have that kind of government. We have a government that pervades society, and increasingly inserts itself into the affairs of the people. The knowledge needed to craft "good" policy in a complex society is not knowable even by intelligent men like Mr. Lessig.

I can anticipate the response to the above statement: Legislators will consult the wisest members of the appropriate fields before drafting legislation. This is a naive, Utopian conceit that still assumes knowledge that is not knowable. On economic issues, should you consult an economist or the business man that must make profit and loss decisions? On technology, should you consult the big players in the industry or the guy tinkering in his garage? On health care, should you consult hospitals which are few in number or the vast number of health care consumers clamoring for "free" drugs and medical procedures who, by the way, will be voting in large quantities in the next election?

What it comes down to is that money isn't the problem. Money in politics is like a fever - an effect of a more serious cause. That more serious cause is an insidious disease that can consume anyone. That disease is power.

Money, on the other hand, is the medium of exchange with which those who must succumb to power purchase access to those who exploit power. Fixating on that medium obscures the true source of corruption.

If Mr. Lessig is serious about corruption in politics he should be looking to curb its true source. I fear, however, that he is not serious because his policy recommendations only consolidate more power in the hands of politicians (e.g., government funding of political campaigns).

So, maybe I shouldn't ignore those who use the phrase "money corrupts politics." It's a marker that tells me that the speaker either doesn't understand the true source of political corruption, or the speaker wants access to that source.

Whatever

2008-03-01T13:58:00.000-08:00

Apparently, Lou Dobbs is just the latest in a long tradition of 'whiners' (HT: Carpe Diem)
Holy Ice Chips, Batman! They've stolen our memory!
Lawrence Lessig wants to ban Congressional earmarks, but is that such a good idea?
The world in music; a city in dishes
Isn't America neat!
Phew! I'm safe for now. But my job is so lame.
The dollar crisis is getting uglier every day
More evidence that increasing wealth is the best way to enable man to solve his problems
The future of computing is exciting! But, apparently we will still be stuck with the lame keyboard interface.

The Danger of Myth

2008-02-25T19:18:00.000-08:00

In response to the Raleigh News & Observer's Q Section question "What makes a perfect president?", I sent the following

In the Local Voice column of Sunday's Q Section, people responded to the question “what makes a perfect president?” by listing personal traits they look for in a candidate. Things such as intelligence, integrity, and the ability to “think outside the box.” While these traits may be well and good, it seems that people are looking for men who they can mythologize instead of men who will perform the mundane task of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States – the actual duties that should make for a “perfect” president.

The main article seemed to capture this view by showing how we've created a mythology around past presidents. The authors seemed to think that this development is a good thing, and even go so far as to suggest that candidates should “harness the power of mythology” to “become part of the myth.” I have to disagree. Creating myths around men who wield the power of government only distorts history, and turns us into what John Adams feared - a nation of men, not of laws.

Whatever

2008-02-21T19:19:00.000-08:00

There is a potty joke here somewhere, but I'll leave it at just being really neat
This is an interesting dilemma. Should you be able to sue the company that made the defective product? Or should you be able to sue the institution that said the product was safe?
I thought secession was bad??
This is just disturbing
It's funny (read tragic) what government will do to make sure data align with a political agenda. Or what individuals have to put up with to serve that political agenda.
The Nordic miracle isn't so miraculous
The good old days are now
Power seeking scoundrels can't let family ties stand in the way, can they?
Let me guess, in a hundred years we will be complaining about how man is destroying the planet by taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. Seriously though, this is why we need to resist those who call for wealth destruction as a way to solve climate problems. Climate change is an engineering problem that can only be solved with increasing wealth.

Obama and Change

2008-02-18T07:37:00.000-08:00

A friend of mine asked for my thoughts on Barack Obama. I alluded to my opinion in my previous post, but I wanted to expand on it here because some libertarians seem to be warming up to Obama.

My friend also sent me this link to Lawrence Lessig's video on why he, Lessig, supports Obama over Clinton. I will try to address some of the points in that video.

Peace for a change

I agree with Lessig's message that electing Obama would give us the best chance for getting out of Iraq. Being against this war from the beginning, I have been tempted to support Obama just on this issue alone. In fact, Obama's 2002 speech opposing the war expresses some sentiments with which I can agree. In particular, the following

I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances...I don’t oppose all wars...What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war...A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

I can agree with this attitude, but I don't think it goes far enough. What is Obama's philosophical approach to foreign policy in general? Looking at his foreign policy page, I see a hodgepodge of diplomatic efforts that rely on the U.S. being heavily involved in the affairs of other countries. For example

Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

And if the "economic pressure and political isolation" doesn't work? How far is Obama willing to go? And does this policy risk harming the good will we have with the Iranian people?

What about a non-interventionist policy that pulls U.S. troops, money, and influence out of the affairs of other countries? What are Obama's criteria for a "smart" war? I may be cynical, but my guess would be that Obama, like Bill Clinton, will justify bombing foreign countries with rhetorical flash, and his supporters will eat it up.

How much change, really?

A word on this idea of "change." All candidates for president running against an incumbent in the opposite party are for change. They may wrap it up with noble rhetoric like "changing the tone in Washington," but in reality they just want to change who holds the reins of power. I defy you to name a national election in your lifetime in which someone was not calling for "changing the tone in Washington." Bush in 2000 called himself the "uniter". In 1988 George H.W. Bush was running on a platform of a "kinder, gentler America." This from a man who was essentially the incumbent.

Let's call this Orwell's Law: a word's meaningfulness is inversely proportional to the number of political placards it is printed on.

So, I don't think Obama is for "change." Yes, he wants to end the war in Iraq, but that's about as far as it goes. I know he talks about warm and fuzzy concepts of unity and bringing people together, but I'm sorry, I've heard it before.

He is basically running on the same platform that all Democrats have run on for the past 70 years - the continuation of the New Deal. Take a look at the Issues tab on his website and tell me what's different about his proposals? He may not give hard details, but the basic outlines are pure New Deal statism. Almost every bullet item begins with "The Obama program creates..." or "The Obama program increases.." Yes, the details of his plans may be structurally different from some other candidate's, but how is it philosophically different? Quibbling over which department runs a new program or what percentage increase a program should get is not fundamentally different from what we've seen since the 1930's.

The problem I see is that these programs create constituencies and an entitlement mentality that cause domestic conflict. Any new program that Obama creates will be for a constituency that will fight tooth and nail to see it continue or expanded by future administrations. When the inevitable budget crisis comes, lobbying for those programs will increase and pit one set of constituencies against another.

Take Social Security, for example. Anyone who questions the efficacy or financial health of Social Security is deemed an enemy of seniors. Touch it and your political career is in jeopardy. You can say the same for Medicare, Medicaid, eduction, and to a lesser degree the minimum wage, and public funding of the arts.

Take this piece of legislation co-sponsored by Obama himself. Even if this bill is well-intentioned, having the government define a "Patriot Employer" creates a mindset of division and ugly nationalism, and gives future lawmakers more ways to pander to the masses.

By growing the scope of government, Obama is creating more ammunition for future political wars. How many times have you heard the phrase "this next election is the most important in our lifetime"? I think I've heard it in nearly every election since I've been politically active (1988). Why do people say this? Because the federal government has taken on so much responsibility that even slowing its growth is considered to be the end of civilization.

Conclusion

I respect Obama's stance against the Iraq war, and I can understand why people may want to vote for him on this issue alone. But as a libertarian, I am disturbed by his trust in government to solve so many problems. His overall philosophy is still that of welfare at home, intervention abroad.

I fear that many libertarians are getting drawn in by Obama's rhetorical skills. While I find it somewhat refreshing to hear someone passionately express their beliefs with skill, I would hope that libertarians would not get caught up in the religious oratorical flair of a gifted politician.

By the way, I haven't voted since 2000 and would not have voted for Obama anyway. Politics is not the way to solve problems.

Whatever

2008-02-17T19:06:00.000-08:00

American jobs created because of trade with China...who'd a thunk that?
I can't believe I'm saying this but I long for the Clinton years
Hacking the Earth
Zeus gets pissed when his flock worship a false idol
For a second there I was thinking that Obama might not be so bad because of his advocacy for ending the war in Iraq. Now I'm cured. Patriotic Employer sounds so bad we should change the term from Orwellian to Obaman. (HT: Coyote Blog)
Markets promote peace; governments promote wars
Someone got the future correct in the 1960's, but I'm still waiting for the flying car (hey, is that Wink Martendale)
What a surprise

Whatever

2008-01-28T18:13:00.000-08:00

Oh the joys of socialized medicine (HT: Positive Liberty)
The Law of Unintended Consequences - "what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system"
Ok, now they have all their bases covered
Weren't these called sails in the past?
"Once you go bot, you never go back"
Oh wait, here is some more joy

Myopia

2008-01-27T14:50:00.000-08:00

One of the arguments made against the free market is that businesses are shortsighted - only concerned about short-run profits. Now, I'm not going to make a sweeping claim saying "no they aren't" because that would be simplistic (just as the original claim is). The truth of the matter is that some business are shortsighted and, of course, some aren't. The market process has a way of sorting out those entities whose vision (short or long) doesn't align with consumer interests.

My own personal experience shows that companies can be both long- and shortsighted at the same time. For example, I currently work in the rail industry as a software architect. Like a lot of technology companies, there is a tendency to produce software quickly without looking at the long-term costs of "rushing to get into production." While at the same time the rail industry is spending billions to upgrade their rail network. In one case you have a short-run view to get products delivered, while in another you have a long-run view of protecting future revenue.

I had a discussion with someone this week about the health care industry and whether or not such companies were shortsighted. He gave the example of the shortsighted companies that just wanted to produce drugs, for example, that only dealt with treating current problems and not investing in research for cures to diseases like cancer. (This was also part of discussion about the so-called conspiracy to keep the cancer cure secret from the public.) This is not true, of course, because there are lots of companies spending billions to find cancer cures. What the correct mix of investment for producing treatments for current problems and searching for new cures is something only the market process can determine.

I bring this up because the claim that the market is shortsighted goes along with the claim that government is better at long range planning. This is silly on its face because politicians have an incentive to pander to constituents on a time frame based on the next election. A perfect example is ethanol. Everyone knows that ethanol is at best no better than regular gasoline, and when all environmental impacts are taking into consideration, may even be worse. Yet we spend billions on subsidizing ethanol in part because Iowa is the first test for presidential candidates.

Anyway, Steven Landsburg has a great article on the shortsighted "stimulus" plan now circulating in Washington (HT: Cafe Hayek). Here's a quote:

Ultimately, the only solution to unemployment is for displaced workers to get retrained and find their way back into the workforce. The new stimulus package only delays that process by propping up dying industries for a while and postponing the day of reckoning. Ultimately, there will be just as much hardship because the stimulus package can't last forever. Why spend all this money trying -- and probably failing -- to delay the inevitable?

Whatever

2008-01-20T17:12:00.000-08:00

Scalping is becoming legit - an example of how law trumps legislation. See this EconTalk podcast regarding scalping.
Free trade destroys jobs that would not exist if it wasn't for free trade - and we're all better off because of it
I don't see why we should care about the nationality of the scientist if we benefit from the science. Having said that, however, can I go to my local school board and get a tax refund since they are apparently not doing their job? I mean come on! How is it possible that there are people "unable to answer correctly when asked if the Earth moves around the Sun"?
Using thoughts to control external devices. Where can I buy my exercise robot?
Ah, the French and their "pro-consumer" laws
Don't trust any video you see from now on
It's always sad to see an industry pander to politicians. It's even sadder that they have to.

The Firm

2008-01-16T18:29:00.000-08:00

Russ Robers over at Cafe Hayek has another good EconTalk episode. He talks with guest Mike Munger of Duke University on the Nature of the Firm. The concept that I took away from the conversation was that firms economize on transaction costs. This may sound a bit arcane, but take a listen anyway. You may appreciate the company you work for a little more.

Speaking of The Firm...

Is Space Exploration Worth the Costs?

2008-01-14T19:01:00.000-08:00

Over at the Freakonomics Blog Stephen Dubner asks this question to a panel of 'space authorities'. The post is a long one, but the consensus is yes, space exploration is worth the costs. I'd like to comment on some of the answers.

Let's start with G. Scott Hubbard. He states, in part

2. We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit.

I'm inclined to be skeptical of this figure, but even it is accurate we have to ask the question "compared to what?" Mr. Hubbard has apparently never heard of Frederic Bastiat. I won't rehash the seen/unseen argument, so go read it yourself.

Along with the seen/unseen argument there is a political angle to this as well. How would politics be different if there weren't billions of dollars available for the taking by crafty politicians trying to buy votes with extravagant projects for congressional districts?

Mr. Hubbard continues:

3. Space exploration in an international context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs.

Umm...didn't we race into space to beat the Soviet Union, not to cooperate with them? Yes, it's great that we cooperate now, but that's not the way it was from the beginning.

Some more from Mr. Hubbard:

4. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration.

'National prestige' reeks of nationalism to me which contradicts #3 above with regards to 'peaceful cooperation'. Maybe we need fewer 'great' civilizations and more that respect basic rights of the individual. Besides, I hear this argument from every do-gooder and 'grand' thinker who wants to solve some big problem or erect some monument to our greatness. I say to these people "open your wallet and get your fingers out of mine."

Having said all of that, I have always been a fan of astronomy and space exploration. I love hearing about new discoveries and seeing images from the Hubble Space Telescope. I even listen to the Astronomy Cast on a regular basis. I just don't think it's right to force others to fund my hobbies. Maybe if I had less of a tax bite I could privately fund some of these efforts.

More to come...maybe.

Whatever

2008-01-12T16:17:00.000-08:00

They screw up the energy market then to "solve" the problem they violate the rights of individuals
People still think that the U.S. healthcare system is based on free markets, Ha!
Ah, the ignorant masses don't seem to know when they are being oppressed (sarcasm!).
One big stupid piece of legislation, 102 court cases to take away property rights. Wonderful!
I said soon after hurricane Katrina hit my hometown that the recovery would be one of the biggest boondoggles in history. Not only is it a boondoggle, it is apparently taking forever for the doggle to boon!

Hoops Goulet

2008-01-10T19:01:00.000-08:00

ESPN tends to have some of the more amusing commercials. Back in the 90's they created some to promote their NCAA Basketball coverage and I that they were some of the best. Here are a few.

This one is about UCLA.

Dicky V.

Deano!

This was my favorite.

I almost forgot about Downtown!

New Year's Whatever

2008-01-05T10:02:00.000-08:00

This is one example (and here's another) of why I am not pessimistic about Global Warming. As we grow richer we can solve ever more problems. We just need to make sure the enviro-socialists don't destroy the wealth-producing engine that is the market economy.
This story should convince anyone that humans and monkeys have a common evolutionary ancestor
Traffic anarchy (HT: CafeHayek)
So, the Fed acts to curb "risky" lending practices, then the Senate acts to make it easier for sub-prime borrowers to get loans. Oh brother!
George Will has some good views on the whole sub-prime mortgage mess

Whatever

2007-12-13T19:02:00.000-08:00

Two interesting stories about human evolution and what has driven the process
Technology can help solve our "energy problems," as usual
Exposing the flaws of the social-welfare state
Wow! I think my wife might want this software.
This is why I started playing the guitar. Even though the sound isn't what it used to be it's still a neat story.
So what?

Whatever

2007-12-08T19:04:00.000-08:00

"I've got to get me one of these!"
Doesn't this seem like it would make the criminal's job that much easier?
Does this mean I'm not a programmer?
The Evolution of Java. Oh, how true! Sad, but true.
This is why public wifi is a bad idea. If the government can force private institutions to turn over "images including 'obscene' cartoons and drawings" that were sent over its network then that same government will have no problem regulating what goes on over public wifi. More here.
A New Pope...
The Spirit of 1776! Thanks for nothing W.
Charles Wheelan gives a good explanation of why ~~self-inflicted embargoes~~ tariffs are bad (HT: CafeHayek)
Pimp'n the 'naut
Well, is Arnold a cyborg or not?

Fight the ignorance

2007-12-04T19:25:00.000-08:00

One blog that I read daily is the Neurologica Blog which is run by Dr. Steven Novella. His articles are always very interesting and informative even when the topic is a complex scientific/medical issue. (I highly recommend his podcast the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. He and his fellow "rouges" can always be counted on to provide a humorous and informative look at science and skeptical news of the day.)

I want to comment on this article in which Dr. Novella examines the legal and social issues of "free citizens giving medical advice." He wonders how we protect the public from those who spout bogus medical advice while at the same time upholding the basic right of free speech. Novella doesn't claim to have the answer, but I wanted to comment on something he says at the end of the article. Here's what he says

"...although I think we do need to thoughtfully tighten up our regulation of the giving of medical advice, any legal remedy is extremely problematic. The far better solution is to educate the public so that they can recognize nonsense when they see it. This, however, is also a very imperfect solution as it is far easier to spread misinformation than it is to correct it."

He is skeptical of legal remedies, as I am, and offers education as a possible solution. I think this solution can actually be more powerful than he understands.

I think we as individuals can start by changing expectations about what is acceptable in society. Educate the credulous; call bullshit on those who perpetuate bogus claims; don't let snake oil salesmen go unchallenged - call them out in a public forum. Setting such expectations creates true organic law that is a better reflection of values shared by individuals in society. Political legislation creates constituencies of power that pit groups against each other and creates a market for pull. (DRM is an example of legislation that doesn't reflect the reality "on the ground" but has powerful constituencies that have the ears of politicians.)

Is this idea of "organic law" via expectations a perfect solution? No. But it is at least more nimble than political legislation which punishes the many to stop the few.

I also believe we have to be careful when informing others about pseudo-science and other false claims. I was recently in a discussion with a friend about natural medicines and homeopathy and I was a bit harsh in my criticisms. If I had to do it over again I would most likely take a different approach because in the end I think my harsh tone was counterproductive. There are times, however, when just calling bullshit is necessary.

You'll read more about this idea of "organic law" if I ever get back to live-blogging Law, Legislation, and Liberty. Until then, fight the ignorance!

Whatever

2007-12-01T08:48:00.000-08:00

The world is going crazy (HT: The Agitator)
The future of the user interface (I really like the reactable)
Ha! I heard the same talk seven years ago
Commie chic
The Fed is just going to make the ultimate day of reckoning that much worse
Damn! I may have to agree with the politicians on this one
Back to the days of sailing
You can't use oil; you can't use nuclear; now you can't use wind
Ah! Scientists against science. Money quote: "Here's what the Bible says. Now let's go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it." And if the evidence isn't there then ... um .... isn't God wonderful!
It seems that the ignorant masses haven't received the memo that Wal-Mart is evil
Ok, I don't understand most of this, but the implications makes me think that the science is B.S.

Reign over me (cont.)

2007-11-25T17:39:00.000-08:00

I sent the following to the Raleigh News & Observer

In your editorial "No dynasty needed," you quote Warren Buffett as saying that "the resources of society I don't think should pass along in an aristocratic dynasty of wealth." This you use to help make your case for keeping the estate tax.

If we are truly concerned about "aristocratic dynasties," however, why not go after the more harmful dynasty of power? Let's amend the Constitution so that family members of former elected officials are prevented from taking their relatives' former seat - a growing phenomenon with regards to Congressional seats. It is possible, after all, that by the year 2017 the presidency will have been in control of two families for nearly 30 years. Why is that less troubling than someone handing down rightfully acquired wealth to his heirs?

We easily violate property rights to prevent so-called "dynasties." Why should we let eligibility requirements for political candidates stand in our way?

Thanksgiving Whatever

2007-11-22T15:14:00.000-08:00

The Gettysburg Presentation
The government doesn't like competition
Simple, small changes can lead to big effects. Especially when dealing with complex systems.
Gee, who'd of thought. Drunk men at football games acting like...um...drunk men at football games.
The Twenty-first Century version of the Speak and Spell, and the idiots who buy it
The snake that is the Mississippi River
My alma mater struggles to cope 2 years after Katrina
So this is why I can walk around in my underwear in public and not feel weird

Happy Thanksgiving!

Reign over me

2007-11-18T17:16:00.000-08:00

"The resources of society I don't think should pass along in terms of an aristocratic dynasty of wealth. I believe in keeping equality of opportunity as much as you can in this country."

Those were the words of renowned investment guru Warren Buffet when he spoke to the Senate Finance Committee recently. He was there to lobby the U.S. Congress to keep the Inheritance Tax which was set to expire in 2010 (it would actually only expire for that year and would return in 2011). It's somewhat sad that such leftist shibboleths are spoken by a man who seems to have the Midas Touch when it comes to investing.

Let's start from the beginning. "The resources of society..." No Mr. Buffet they are not society's resources they are yours. You created them with your hard work - they would not have existed otherwise. Why does "society" have a claim on them? Okay, maybe you can make the claim that if it wasn't for "society" you wouldn't have had the ability to acquire such wealth. But the reverse case could also be made: other members of society wouldn't be as rich or even have jobs if it weren't for men like you.

"... I don't think should pass along in terms of an aristocratic dynasty of wealth." I applaud the healthy suspicion of aristocracy, but let's not forget the other American tradition: respect for property rights. I would also argue that a "dynasty of wealth" is somewhat innocuous unless that wealth is allowed to wield the power of government. We can blame the owners of such wealth for influencing government power, but the onus must fall upon elected officials who allow themselves to be bought.

A note on terminology: Aristocratic dynasties are primarily governing institutions. If we really wanted to stop true "aristocratic dynasties" shouldn't we amend the constitution to prevent family members of former elected officials from running for office? (It is possible that by 2017 the U.S. Presidency would have been in the control of two families for almost 30 years. There is also a growing trend where children are replacing their parents in Congress.)

"I believe in keeping equality of opportunity as much as you can is this country." How is it that opportunity is taken away from anyone if you, Mr. Buffet, are able to leave your wealth to your heirs? I would argue that your wealth has created opportunity for countless numbers of people - whether it be with jobs that were created or investments that increased in value. Do you trust the political process with such wealth more than your heirs? You may want to think that your taxed wealth will go to better someone's life, but it could just as easily be said that that money will go to support more corruption and war. I would hope that you would look to clean up government before giving it more wealth to destroy.

Here's an idea: Why not continue your philanthropic ways by willing your estate to a cause (or causes) that would provide opportunity directly to individuals? Why should that wealth have to be pass through the unproductive sieve of a political bureaucracy?

Unfortunately, Mr. Buffet is part of a sad tradition of wealthy people who want to fund and lobby for the destruction of the very engine that made them wealthy. Maybe this book by Garet Garrett would be a valuable read.

Whatever

2007-11-15T17:57:00.000-08:00

Some random whatever

"E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional." Umm...now me feel dumb.
Wow! This is neat - security in your pocket.
While I agree with their overall message, I hate that these women politicized such an occasion
I've been suspicious of AT&T for a long time. Now I know why.
A great explanation of trade by Russ Roberts
It's about time the car gets an overhaul
Before too long these monkeys will be voting
Ignore Al Gore!
When the government gets to define privacy, you no longer have it

Milton Friedman on "greed"

2007-11-13T19:32:00.000-08:00

I love this YouTube video of Milton Friedman giving Phil Donahue a good smack-down. In contrast to Donahue's banal, simplistic arguments, Friedman teaches with reason and trenchant arguments while maintaining a sense of class.

Ants and order

2007-11-13T19:16:00.000-08:00

Here's an article from Carl Zimmer talking about how insects create order by following very simple rules. What's interesting is that in the article Zimmer mentions that experiments were run with humans to mimic this order making phenomenon. I couldn't help but wonder why they had to run experiments with humans, because you could easily study human society to find similar spontaneous orders. Medieval law, language, the market process and other aspects of human culture can be traced to individuals following simple rules.

I will have more to say about this in future blog posts when I continue my live blogging of "Law, Legislation, and Liberty."

Two minute answers

2007-11-10T17:37:00.000-08:00

I've joined Toastmasters recently, and in this past week's session the table-topics master asked "how would you fix the problem of rising gas prices?" I regret not volunteering to answer because it would have been a good forum in which to educate people on the market process. So here is the answer I would have given.

My answer is that I don't know, and neither do you. No one in Washington knows and no environmentalist or oil company executive knows.

The answer, or more likely answers, will emerge from what Ludwig von Mises called the "daily repeated plebiscite" of the market process. Each of us contributes to this process by acting on our own bit of information. Consumers make decisions about what and how much to purchase, and producers and entrepreneurs decide on what and how much to produce. What governs this process is not some central authority with god-like powers; nor is it some committee of wise men with only the public good in mind. The governing mechanism of this "daily plebiscite" is the price system. Rising prices encourage consumers to cut back on purchases while at the same time encouraging producers to find new sources of supply. Innovative new products and technologies become more viable with higher prices.

Now I know this answer is somewhat simplistic because it ignores the international political issues going on in the world. It also assumes that the normative statement of rising gas prices being a problem is correct. But there was a two minute time limit!

Whatever

2007-11-07T17:05:00.000-08:00

Some random whatevers

Private efforts to preserve the coast
Someone didn’t get the memo that obesity is always bad
Doesn't this happen naturally at vacation spots all over the world?
Yawn...another planet found
I'll be bookmaking this for sure
Does this mean the vroom, vroom, vroom gets replaced with hum, hum, hum
So, the OLPC is going to be built in China. Does that mean the factory workers will get to keep the computers they make?
Maybe this can answer this (last paragraph)

Economics of health care

2007-11-05T16:58:00.000-08:00

I've written many blog posts about health care and the problems with government-run systems, so I was excited to see that the latest episode of EconTalk with Russ Roberts was about the economics of health care. Take a listen.

BTW, if EconTalk is not one of your regular podcast subscriptions, you should make it so. Russ Roberts is a great host, and his topics are very thought provoking and interesting. If you have listened to EconTalk before then think about voting for it as the Best Podcast of the Year.

While I'm on the subject of the economics of health care, here are some interesting articles to peruse

Abolishing the Middlemen Won’t Make Health Care a Free Lunch - a great article by Tyler Cowen showing how the costs of health care are not just monetary
Beyond those health care numbers - Gregory Mankiw debunks some common myths about health care in the U.S.
Brooklyn doctor opens IM practice - a great story about an entrepreneur bringing health care to the uninsured
Here are several horror stories about government-run systems

The Curse (cont.)

2007-10-19T18:11:00.000-07:00

Cruel fate, why must you mock me so?!

Joe Torre leaves the Yankees
Dark Days Ahead

Kosmos and Taxis

2007-09-03T18:23:00.000-07:00


Go to the ant, you sluggard;
  consider its ways and be wise!
It has no commander,
  no overseer or ruler,
yet it stores its provisions in summer
  and gathers its food at harvest.
-- Proverbs 6:6

I continue my live-blogging of Law, Legislation, and Liberty here with an investigation into order and its sources.

Order

Hayek defines social order in the following way:

“a state of affairs in which a multiplicity of events of various kinds are so related to each other that we may learn from our acquaintance with some spatial or temporal part of the whole to form correct expectations concerning the rest, or at least expectations which have a good chance of proving correct.”

The key word in that definition for me is expectation – order is expectation. Order is knowing that a cause will have an effect. Hayek expounds on his definition by saying that order manifests itself in the matching of intentions and expectations of different individuals who are members of a society and who are dependent upon cooperation with others.

Sources of Order

Now, having defined order we need to determine how it comes about. According to Hayek there are two sources of order – made order (taxis) and spontaneous order (kosmos).

Made orders require a “maker” from outside the system (exogenous) with a deliberate arrangement in mind. The “maker” is authoritarian and requires knowledge that is not possible to attain when dealing with complex systems. Simple organizations are made orders that have defined rules for the different roles. The operational details of those roles, however, are still left to the individual members.

Spontaneous orders, on the other hand, emerge based on rules not known by the individual elements. Nature teems with this kind of order (e.g., evolution, insect colonies, etc.), but we can also see it in human institutions. Language is a classic example, but what is more interesting is the order that emerges in basic human civilization. For a social order to exist individual members must follow certain rules, but how are those rules defined if a social order does not yet exist? The rules must evolve over time. Just like evolved traits that allow biological forms to survive and reproduce, social rules that allow individual members of a group to survive will be passed on and allow the group to survive. (We must be careful here and not equate social groups (i.e., society) with organisms. Organisms are concrete entities while social groups are mere abstractions that are constructed by the mind.)

Hayek says this about the rules that govern human society:

"Although man never existed without laws that he obeyed, he did, of course, exist for hundreds of thousands of years without laws he 'knew' in the sense that he was able to articulate them."

Could this be why murder seems so intuitively wrong to us? What about theft and property rights in general? Could we have evolved past a primitive state without these “laws”?

Conclusion

What is the purpose of defining order and its causes? Hayek is basically leading us to a differentiation between law and legislation - laws are naturally forming while legislation is man-made. Laws are what bring about a natural order. What does legislation bring? To be continued...