My Few Thoughts

Been a while since I posted. Busy busy. Anyway, a few thoughts I'd like to share:

1.) Is it me, or is every website trying to become just like every other website? What's up with that? (Evidence: Facebook overhaul, Google Buzz, I heard Twitter is becoming more social-networky...)

2.) If I'm ordering a Papa John's pizza online, don't you think they should tell you the expected delivery time is 90 minutes BEFORE they bill your credit card? What do people consider acceptable maximum pizza wait times? I think 20-30 minutes is normal, 45 minutes to 50 if they're super busy. 90? Really? For shame.

3.) Tomorrow is Valentine's Day and Chinese New Year. How come I'm celebrating Chinese New Year, but all my Chinese friends are celebrating Valentine's Day? (Disclosure: I'm not Chinese, but compared to some of the people who are, boy do I feel like I am.)

4.) Why is it when the Republicans are in the majority, it's 51 votes to get something done, but when the Democrats are in the majority, it's 60? The obvious answer is because the Democrats don't threaten to filibuster as much...but my theory is a little different: the Democrats are more afraid of the filibuster. Filibustering is hard...the Republicans can't filibuster EVERYTHING, and if they did, it'd be political suicide to appear CONSTANTLY intransigent in the face of widely popular bills (with which the Democrats would lead, if they were smart). Call their bluff, or if it's not a bluff, use it to win some desperately points going into the midterms. I'm not professional political strategist, but when your enemy is announcing their intended strategy--and it isn't that great a plan to begin with--why be afraid of it? Lose a few battles, win a few wars. It shouldn't be that complicated. Am I missing something...or are they?

My You-Plural

Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!

Incidentally, I'm starting to come around on the various plurals of "you." Incorrect though they may be, they do add efficiency. I actually prefer "yous" to "y'all," but for some reason it sounds a little awkward to end a sentence with it (though even if one were wishing a singular person a happy holiday, one wouldn't put "you" after a direct address comma to conclude the benediction).

So here's what I propose (and I know it's complicated, but so is the rest of our language):

1) When ending a sentence addressed to a group, a folksy Southern "y'all" is correct.
e.g.) "Happy Thanksgiving, y'all"
2) In the middle of the sentence, a hearty Northeastern "yous" is correct.
e.g.) "What do yous want?"
3) When beginning a sentence, "y'all" is correct, unless addressing a named group of people, in which case "yous" becomes the modifier.
e.g.) "Y'all come back now!" and "Y'all want some lemonade?" as opposed to "Yous guys are good people" or "Yous congressional leaders need to stop acting like children."

So...what do yous readers think?

I really want to know how this story works out. A couple college kids refused to pay an automatically added gratuity at a restaurant which provided terrible service. Now it's going to trial as a criminal case.

Personally, I'm rooting for the kids. Any lawyers out there think they have a case? Or don't? I'd content the automatic addition of a gratuity for service constitutes a promise by the establishment to provide acceptable service, a promise the students acted upon in good faith by ordering off the menu in a group of 6 or more as clearly stated. If the establishment didn't follow through, the students shouldn't still be on the hook for services rendered--or in this case, not rendered.

Would Jesus Be A Capitalist?

Michael Moore, as part of his anti-capitalism campaign, is sending around an e-mail asking if Jesus were alive today, would he be a capitalist, or would he be opposed to capitalism? Here's my response:

Name an economic system that would be better for the poor than capitalism. Seriously.

Sure, it creates big gaps between rich and poor, but would Jesus want you comparing your life's worth to the life of your neighbor? The poor in America have a better standard of living than the poor in most non-capitalist countries, with more opportunities for social mobility as well. A poor person in capitalist America is better off than both a poor person pretty much anywhere in non-capitalist Africa and a poor person anywhere in the world during the time of Jesus. Heck, they're better off than most rich people in both those situations (certainly most middle-class people). Better access to healthcare, education, resources, the tools for self-improvement, travel opportunities, social and socioeconomic advancement and development...

And to those who make the argument that those are trappings of modern society and not of capitalism itself, which economies invented all that stuff? Communist and socialist countries lagged behind the societies which lavishly rewarded those who brought tremendous value to those societies. Not everyone's a genius and a saint like Norman Borlaug. We're human, by and large, and respond to incentive structures. Life saving medicine is invented by pharmaceutical companies who expect patents on their $50 pills which save the taker a $10,000 operation (which itself was once not that big a price to pay for 20 more years on Earth). The best way to make money in a well-run capitalist economy is to provide things people want, that make their lives better. Sure, we've got regulatory gaps, but to abandon the system entirely? I don't buy it.

To those who say "OK, fine, capitalism was good, but now it's run its course. Let's go another direction," I reply: "What about tomorrow's poor?" Do we want to freeze the state of poverty, redistribute the wealth, and squelch innovation? Crawl along in a dangerous world not giving people strong incentives to better everyone? Capitalism was worse a hundred years ago than it is now...the current crisis highlighted some steps back, but we're still far ahead of where we were. We're making progress within capitalism, and the capitalists are making more progress than others.

What's the alternative? Non-capitalist countries are quickly adopting capitalist activities and policies, but the reverse isn't happening. Even successful "socialist" countries are really capitalist countries with socialism-inspired domestic policies. And they wouldn't be where they are today without the help of capitalist friends and trading partners.

Yes, we need a better safety net. Yes, we need to regulate markets and correct for market failures. But the dirty little secret is America won't really fail because capitalism will tumble...the Visigoths at our gate are not socialists, communists, or anything else. They're capitalists, who will beat us at our own game, the only game in town among superpowers, nations on the rise, and great societies. They'll better regulate, better incentivize, better innovate, better create...solar panels are coming from China and Germany; wireless innovations are coming from developing nations without legacy systems and inflexible out-of-date policies like India and Israel; we're being out-manufactured by places that can do it cheaply--and in doing so take the poor out of the streets and put them in bad jobs, but jobs nonetheless. Jobs where there were none before. And all these countries are coming around to capitalism.

Would Jesus be a capitalist? Would he find jobs and dignity for the poor? Would he help invent life-saving drugs or safer cars or cleaner energy? Would he sell software to help us make better decisions, and donate the money to a big foundation to level the educational playing field? Would he still walk around the countryside talking to people dozens at a time, or would he go with a book, a blog, a podcast, a TV segment, an Op-Ed? Almost 7 billion people, can't save them one at a time anymore.

He might not speculate in the derivatives market, because it's more or less a zero-sum game...but would he frown upon a farmer buying a weather derivative that pays off in case of an extra-dry season, giving him enough money to get by and replant next season? Would he tell Merck to close up shop? Would he disapprove of accessing capital markets to raise funds to build a hospital? Darn right Jesus would be a capitalist were he alive today. Just like the rest of the Jews.

Geek Movie Plot Holes

So Wired magazine published a list of the Top 10 Unanswered Questions in Geeky Movies. (HT: Neat-O-Rama)

I thought it was a good read that merited sharing, but not without comment. A few of these plot holes aren't really plot holes at all. Specifically, the Star Wars ones. Maybe some of the others have explanations too, but I don't know enough to offer a rebuttal.

Quoting from the article:
"4. Star Wars: The Death Star’s slow attack - So the Death Star follows the tracking device on the Millennium Falcon to the rebel base. They jump out of light speed, and, for no clear reason, emerge on the far side of the planet Yavin from the moon where the base is. This light-speed jump takes a split-second, but now they have to wait minutes so they can clear the planet. Not only that, but the Death Star is capable of blowing up entire planets, not just moons, so why don’t they just blow up the entire planet of Yavin? Surely that would effectively destroy anything on its moons as well."

Resolution: The Death Star is a giant space station that travels very slowly. Hyperdrives (the faster-than-light) technology operate on completely different principles than the sublight drives. The Death Star followed the Millennium Falcon to the Yavin system, and once it got there, had to use its slow engines to get around the planet (the long lag time makes sense). Why not hyper-jump around the planet? Hyperdrive jumps take a while to calculate, and gravity is a big obstacle that limits where you can go safely. Intra-system jumps were never part of the story--hyperdrives only get you from system to system.

Why not blow up the planet Yavin itself? This one bothered me too, and several answers come to mind. One, it's a gas giant, so blowing up the relatively tiny core might not be a guaranteed kill against the moon, especially if most of the planets mass is actually in the gas or there are other strange principles at work (magnetic ones come to mind, but I won't expand on that here). Why not blow up the planet, THEN blow up the moon if you miss? I'm guessing a giant superlaser like that takes long enough to recharge that it made sense to go for a guaranteed kill after a 20 minute trip than to risk having to wait around for hours (maybe more) for your second shot, giving the Rebels plenty of time to evacuate.

A bigger unanswered question in my mind would be: why didn't the Rebels start evacuating the moon of Yavin IV immediately, just in case 24 one-man fighters didn't manage to destroy a space station that was 235 miles in circumference?

"2. The Empire Strikes Back: Time dilation - Luke and R2D2 leave Hoth to go to Dagobah at the same time Han, Leia, Chewbacca, and C3PO leave to go… well, they never really say what their initial destination is. Anyway, on Dagobah, Luke embarks on an intensive Jedi training course with Yoda — it’s never stated, but it’s heavily implied that this takes a long time; and besides, you would think a full course of Jedi training would take at least months, right? (We know it’s a full course, because when Luke comes back in Jedi, Yoda tells him he doesn’t need more training.) So, at the same time that Luke finishes this months-long training and runs off to Cloud City, his friends have clearly just gotten there a short time before. Yet all they did on the way was flee from a Star Destroyer and fly down the gullet of a giant space worm. That must have taken hours, not months. So was the Millennium Falcon flying at close to the speed of light (but not at light speed) for a while and thus experiencing time dilation? Yeah, that’s the ticket."

Resolution: This one's pretty easy: the Millennium Falcon's hyperdrive was out. They had to make the trip from Hoth to Bespin at sublight speeds. I think it's more amazing that didn't take YEARS, as planets are typically pretty far apart (and Hoth was in a supposedly remote region). What's amazing here isn't that Luke's training was so short--it's that the OTHER storyline was so chronologically compact (or, conversely, that the training was so long and the Falcon had enough emergency rations so no one died of starvation or dehydration along the way).

Consumer Marketing Question

The more choices a person is faced with, the less likely they are to make a choice at all. People are almost 10 times more likely to buy jam if they have to choose from 6 jams than if they have to choose from 24. For every 10 extra funds in a 401k program, participation goes down 2%. People don't like having too many choices, unless the choices is fun to make and variety adds real value (like choosing sundae toppings, or in nerdy cases, configuring a new computer).

OK, keep that in mind. Now consider marketing tactics: multiple brand names is often a dominant strategy. If there are 6 laundry detergents on the shelf, and people randomly select, Company A has a 17% market share. But by coming out with 4 new brands, all pretty much the same thing, they now have 5/10 instead of 1/6. 50% market share. And that strategy also works with just about everything else in the grocery store.

Now combine these, and you have a real prisoner's dilemma in consumer goods marketing. More brands and choices means a bigger slice of the pie for a company. But more brands and choices also means a smaller overall pie for non-essential products.

How do companies balance out these interests? There's clearly a rational limit on the number of choices you can offer in a grocery store, but that number--and the number of choices many consumers are given--is almost certainly larger than the number that would maximize the size of the pie. And there's another cost--as producer sales and producer surplus rise, consumer surplus also rises, because individuals won't feel incentivized to skip a first choice product for a substitute that's easier to navigate. At the very least, it lowers transaction costs (choosing costs, including effort and time), which is a gain for consumers.

How does this tug of war dynamic play out in marketplaces? Would it even be legal for companies to agree to limit branding diversity, even if it's for everyone's benefit? Is there a simple strategy, like in a prisoner's dilemma problem, that's clearly dominant? Or even a simple strategy that's clearly good?

My Neighbors

In lieu of hearing my opinions, read this (Too Poor to Make the News), or even just part of it. If you're too lazy, it's a New York Times guest piece written about how invisible the poorest Americans have become.

The media is flushed with stories of rich and middle class people who have fallen from grace, but the working poor are losing their jobs and homes in disproportionately greater numbers as they crowd into trailers and tiny apartments and sleep on the streets. They're hard to count, hard to see, and are becoming invisible, but there's almost 40 million of them, more than 1 out of every 10 Americans, and when designing policy or making donations or arguing around the watercooler, it's important not to forget them. The gap between the middle class and the uber-rich may be shrinking a bit, but the gap between the middle class and the poorest certainly isn't as their standard of living falls to third-world levels. Unharnessed economic potential and millions of families hang in the balance as we argue about Main Street and Wall Street...but the streets aren't just places of business. They're homes and beds to far too many.

[Incidentally, this kind of makes me mad at John Edwards...he was in a prime position to help these people and do something about it--more than just handouts and stopgaps--and he had great ideas and energy, and then he screwed it all up...it's not just his own life and marriage on his shoulders. Am I crazy, or do others feel like he let a lot of people down too?]

The Safer Side of Bonds?

I had an idea today, and the logic goes as follows:
America's massive debt to China makes us safer. Why? There's reasonably high correlation between the following: really evil people, people who hate America, people who rely on China's economic engagement and/or tacit political support.

During the Korean War, China got involved solidly on the side of North Korea. Since then, a lot of our problems with North Korea are compounded by China's lack of willingness to play ball. But now that we owe China hundreds of billions of dollars, they can't really take sides against us in an armed conflict, and today, the Wall Street Journal reported that China may be willing to consider sanctions as North Korea pursues nuclear weapons. I think China is waking up to their new incentive structure, and we'll be seeing them take steps, if necessary, to safeguard what is essentially their investment in our future.

Alexander Hamilton said "a national debt is a national blessing," and I think we're going to start seeing it in action.

(That said, this huge debt burden may prove crippling, lead to high interest rates, rampant inflation, increased rates of corporate bankruptcy, and rollbacks in services and government programs. But at least China will help keep the nukes away.)

More Credit Card Law Analysis

So I did a little more research, here's an update on a few specific provisions relating to students:

PROVISION: Students may not be offered gifts in exchange for completing credit card applications.
RATING: Don't like it, but probably a net gain.
ANALYSIS: This seems like it hurts the responsible people and helps the irresponsible people. There are probably a lot more irresponsible students than knowledgeable and fiscally responsible students, so I think it might be a net societal gain by making it harder to get the irresponsible students addicted to debt, as they say. That said, I don't like the idea of punishing the responsible at the expense of the irresponsible. Just as it's easier for a credit card company to take advantage of a student, it's also easier for a responsible and cunning student to take advantage of credit card companies--by getting free stuff in exchange for what they were going to do anyway (that is, get a credit card and be responsible about it). It also restricts freedom and limits consumer choice. So from a philosophical standpoint I'm opposed to it, and it does hurt people like me, but I think I have to admit that even I expect this provision to produce some slight net benefit for the country.

PROVISION: Universities will now be required to disclose marketing agreements made with credit card issuers. Credit card companies will likewise be required to report donations and other financial transactions with universities and alumni associations.
RATING: Good
ANALYSIS: If a student's school is in a business relationship with the company offering credit cards on campus, disclosing that may take away what a student sees as an implicit endorsement. It reveals conflicts of interest, does nothing to restrict freedom or choice, and provides information to consumers. I think there are great principles involved here, and the only reason I didn't rate it higher than "Good" is because I'm not sure how big a difference this will make. But there's no downside, so it's worth a shot.

PROVISION: "Calls on" the Government Accountability Office to conduct a review of the impact of university/credit card company business relationships on student credit card debt.
RATING: Good
ANALYSIS: No "thou shalt not..." regulation in this part. It just asks the GAO to look into how big a factor these currently unseen deals are when it comes to helping and hurting students with credit, credit cards and debt. The disclosure requirements should make the studies easier to do, and it might provide some insights that make future regulation and legislation better. I'll upgrade this to a "Great" if we also use the opportunity to learn about financial education needs and how to improve that education in this country.

My Credit Card Law Analysis

So Congress is passing new credit card legislation. Some of the ideas in it are good, and some of them are bad. Some of them will help lots of people. Some won't. A few provisions will help some poor people and hurt some rich people. Other provisions will protect some poor people and hurt some other poor people. Here's PiFry's Guide to Congress's Credit Card Legislation Rush Job. Whether you're trying to form your own opinions or sound impressive at the watercooler, this primer of a few salient points should help. Feel free to add your own ideas in the comments.

PROVISION: Banks must send out credit card bills no later than 21 days before payment is due.
RATING: Pretty Good
ANALYSIS: This prevents the old trick of mailing a bill late in the hopes of being able to charge late fee. That trick is unethical and abusive, and 21 days builds in enough time to account for two envelopes making their way through the postal system, plus ample time for the bill payer to get the money together to pay it. Ideally Congress would just outlaw the unethical tactics, but intent is so hard to prove and even harder to monitor, so a day count is the best way to go. I'm not crazy about such a stiff and inflexible regulation, but I honestly can't think of a better way to do it.

PROVISION: Banks generally must wait until a payment is 60 days late before charging the higher penalty rate on outstanding balances.
RATING: Unnecessary, annoying, and too restrictive
ANALYSIS: Why 60 days? Why not 2 months, which would be anywhere from 59 to 62 days? Why not 59 days? Why not 49 days? This is an arbitrary and unnecessary cutoff. If a payment is late, the previous provision kind of ensures the person is actually delinquent and not caught in some trick. I understand allowing some grace period for something like a medical emergency or being stuck in an airport someplace, but 60 days seems excessive. A 30 day limit might help people who need it, but a long 60 limit just lends a helping hand not to the poor, but to the irresponsible. Credit card companies may try to make up the profits elsewhere at the expense of more creditworthy customers, which violates a fairness principle I think most Americans hold when it comes to markets. (As an aside, this regulation could also be bypassed by a penalty scheme that's still legal and yet more complicated and esoteric--kind of the exact opposite of the direction in which this bill is trying to push things.)

PROVISION: 45 days mandatory notice for an interest rate change
RATING: Often good, sometimes annoying
ANALYSIS: It makes sense to require enough notice of changing rates to allow them to plan accordingly. This prevents some abuse. That said, it also rules out cards for consumers who might WANT a frequently-changing rate. If a bank wants to issue a card with a fluctuating but lower-on-average variable rate (or a consumer is willing to trade a fluctuating rate for something more important to them about the card), this will restrict consumer choice. I don't like that, and it potentially costs society some real value. I think there should be some exceptions in the final draft of the bill (I'm not sure if they're talking about it or not).

PROVISION: If a consumer's payment is received by 5PM on the due date, the payment is on time.
RATING: Awesome
ANALYSIS: The only thing this does is prevent a company from screwing with customers by putting a mid-day or early-morning deadline in the fine print. No more charging late fees for having a payment arrive with an afternoon mail delivery, and no more late fees for the postman getting caught in traffic.

PROVISION: Banks will now require customer permission before charging that customer a fee for exceeding their credit limit.
RATING: Very good
ANALYSIS: Currently, a bank can automatically charge a high fee every time a consumer goes over his or her limit (accepting the new charge). From now on, the default will be for limits to be actual limits, and charges will be declined unless the customer gives the bank permission to charge an outrageous fee for a temporary bump of the credit limit. Only downside is for the consumers who don't know they're at their limit, haven't authorized such a fee, and really really really need to charge whatever they're trying to put on their card. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

PROVISION: When carrying multiple types of balances on the same card (with different rates), banks must apply payments to the highest interest portion of the balance first.
RATING: Very good
ANALYSIS: It was an old trick to say "0% interest for balance transfers!" and let someone put $6,000 on a new card that had a 24.99% rate for everything else. Then even if the customer was responsible and spent $100 the first month while paying $200 on the bill, the credit card company would say "OK, you now have $5,800 outstanding on the balance transfer and $100 outstanding on which you owe 24.99% interest." It was basically a trap to roll all the new spending into a very high interest loan until they paid for the balance transfer. There were tons of these tricks, and now they'll be illegal. Good for consumers--especially less savvy ones--and bad for credit card companies (who will probably take it out on customers like me who always pay off everything). The downside to this comes up when a consumer would want to pay the lower-rate balance off first, though such situations are hard to think of outside of contrived examples.

PROVISION: Promotional rates must last at least 6 months.
RATING: Terrible
ANALYSIS: Promotional rates are marketing. As long as the duration of the promotional rate is made clear from the beginning, we shouldn't force companies into using specific types of marketing offers. This kind of invasive micromanaging helps very little and bans (or makes more difficult to provide) all sorts of offers which could, if used correctly, be very beneficial to consumers. A plain-English disclosure requirement would work much better here.

PROVISION: Issuers can't raise the base (non-promotional non-penalty rate) for a year after issuance.
RATING: Meh, whatever
ANALYSIS: This one probably isn't a big deal in the long run; it does offer some protection; and the above regulation allows the effective rate to change once (promotional to non-promotional), but seriously, let the market decide this kind of thing. If we're requiring 45 days written notice for a rate change, how necessary is this? On the other hand, it could prevent someone from having to change credit cards a lot, which would reflect negatively on their credit rating...in analyzing this I reach an indifference point.

PROVISION: Certain pieces of information will have to be disclosed in plain English and written in 10-point font or bigger.
RATING: Awesome
ANALYSIS: Disclosure regulations are good. Disclosure regulations which mandate important information be presented in a legible and understandable format are even better. These kinds of information include everything from expiration dates on gift cards (and similar devices) to how much it would cost to pay off a balance making the minimum payments. Useful information for consumers presented clearly. Fantastic. Nine thumbs up.

Finally:
PROVISIONS: Young people and students are going to see a very different landscape in a lot of ways. I'm getting conflicting information on what this will entail.
RATING: Hard to say right now, but it's looking worriesome
ANALYSIS: I've heard a lot of reports floating around, but generally it seems like the little ideas are good and the big ideas are bad. Little ideas include more disclosure on relationships between colleges and card issuers and banning certain marketing practices like a university-endorsed booth offering frat boys a free slice of pizza if they sign up for a credit card. Big ideas include forcing parental cosigners for young people, and parental consent for increases in credit limit. My big problem with this: how are young people supposed to develop good credit on their own? Having a credit card was very helpful to me in college in developing a credit history, and it's saved me a lot of money over the years. Those who have their own income can apply for a waiver, but the cutoff age being talked about is 21. This means for 3 years a full American citizen who isn't a minor will be treated like a second class citizen. 21 is a rare age limit, and we use it for things like drinking due to all the extra drunk driving deaths. Is a credit card really that dangerous? Some would argue yes, but they'd be equivocating, and this doesn't sit right with me. This could help protect some, but also hurt and inconvenience a lot of people.

That's the end of my primer; I have to go do other things now. Hope it helped. One last note: I'm hearing a lot of talk about how the credit card companies will jack up fees and cut benefits for responsible card holders to make up the difference...I'm not sure how true that is though. I'm sure we'll see a little bit of that, but at the same time, if credit card companies have to make more money on regular business and less on fees, they may be competing even more vigorously for the big-spenders (after all, the companies do get a percentage of EVERY TRANSACTION that takes place on the credit card as well). I think the effects may cancel each other out, by and large.

My Dramatic Readings

This editorial from today’s New York Times talks about what we have lost by no longer reading aloud to one another (and no longer playing music for one another). I know many who would agree with this piece, and I too agree with the author that such activities had and have great value, ranging from a different kind of literacy and literary understanding to a lost form of familial intimacy. That said, I think that by and large this author is completely wrong.

The first logical fault lies in claiming that aside from convenience, we gain nothing from hearing books on tape instead of read aloud at an in-person gathering and from hearing music recorded by professionals instead of played in a cozy living-room recital. I say that even if it were NOT as convenient, these things could still be considered massive improvements. Audiobooks are often read by professional actors or voice actors, and even the less-professionally done volumes still get the benefit of editing and redoing portions. We are getting a higher quality product. When I read aloud, I stammer sometimes. I don’t always read far enough ahead with my eyes to begin a sentence with the inflection or tone intended by the author. I may be quite deficient compared with the average bookworm of a century or two ago, but even they can’t compete with trained pros who get do-overs and editing equipment. My audiobook is of a higher quality.

And that argument goes double for music. Sure it’d be nice to hear a waltz played on the family harpsichord by my neighbor’s daughter, but does she take requests? She can’t possibly have the 5,000 song repertoire my iPod has, and even if she did, my iPod can learn a new song faster. A collection of friends can’t master all the techniques, songs, instruments, styles, and vocal impressions required to recreate my favorite compositions, and I don’t even think I have enough friends to replicate the London Symphony Orchestra. Which brings me to my next point: the London Symphony Orchestra is BETTER than my friends. Apologies to any musically inclined readers, but there’s no way a social network can match quality recordings of the best the world has ever seen. Metropolitan orchestras, original cast recordings from musicals, historical recordings of bands long gone, and nearly instant access to the best of modern innovation…all these things are at our fingertips now.

Now, I’ll still read to my children. And I’ll play my audiobooks as I drift off to sleep because it’s convenient. But I’ll also play music for my children even when I’m capable of singing to them instead—because I suck at it. And audiobooks read by the author will always have a place in my home, because that out-loud version is guaranteed to better represent the author’s intended inflections, tones and more ineffable qualities. Technology doesn’t stop us from doing these things, but the fact that we frequently choose not to may be telling. Convenience is huge, but so is quality.

We can lament the decline of human interaction brought on by computers, cell phones and iPods, but when it comes to the recitation and recreation of pre-composed prose and music, I’ll accept modernity’s technological embrace over Jane Austen’s contemporary parlors, because not only is it more convenient, it’s better.

My Fourth New Years

Rosh HaShannah. January 1st. Chinese New Years. And now, Sports New Year's Day.

Barkeep is proposing that Valentine's Day serve a double purpose: a renewal of the Sporting Year. Superbowl's over, baseball spring training is about to start, hockey, basketball, and college basketball games haven't mattered yet, but are about to start to as everyone has a shot at the playoffs or the March Madness tournament. The major golf tournaments are coming up (the long awaited return of Tiger this year), and with everything going on, it may be a good time to reflect on our rabid allegiances and reflect on the sports year recently ended as we look forward to the next baseball season. This new holiday falls neatly in the off-season of both American national pastimes (baseball and football), and nothing else major is going on...yet. We stand on the brink, but we can take a day to renew our commitments, update our expectations, make a few resolutions, and mock each other.

And as I look back on the past sporting year, I only have one thing to say:
WORLD CHAMPIONS.

My post on surging army recruitment seems to have gotten a lot of attention (though I'm not sure anyone got or liked my "surge" pun). I thought people who are thinking about modern military policy might also be interested in this table of military expenditures per capita by nation. The United States is not, as many would predict, first. It's third. #1 is predictable, but #2 surprised me.

Surging Army Recruitment

For the first time in 5 years the Army is not only meeting, but exceeding its recruitment goals. An economist I respect (among many others) is attributing it to a combination of high unemployment and better incentives (both of which are typical factors that contribute to higher enlistment rates in the armed forces). It makes sense, but I'm not buying it. Recruitment shot up after 9-11, and I think there's another external non-economic factor at play here (though considerably more minor).

We have a new commander in chief. Joining the armed forces is risking your life, and you're more likely to do it if you think the risk is lower. Furthermore, the more you trust the guy in whose hands you're putting your life, the more willing you are to do it. I don't think this can possibly be a result of better positive incentives and fewer alternatives alone (though it's certainly a part). I think that from the perspective of potential recruits, there has been a significant drop in their own personal barriers to entry. I'm going to go up against the experts here and say I believe that Obama sitting in the Oval instead of Bush is a statistically significant component of the Army's newfound ability to meet and exceed recruitment goals (if anyone can think of a good way to test these hypotheses, let me know).

[Editor's Addendum: Read First Tiger's reply in the comments section; it's well-thought out and insightful. The only thing wrong with it is that he disagrees with me, though I'm not sure our positions are mutually exclusive...it may just be a matter of degrees.]

My Dating Sites

How specialized can a dating site get before it's TOO specialized? Clearly some specialization can help, but basic economic theory would indicate that the value in a dating site depends entirely on the size and quality of the network of people on it. So how narrow (or "segmented" to use the marketers' term) do you want to get?

JDate is a wll-known example, catering to Jews (and, I suppose, people looking for Jews, but it primarily works if you're Jewish). This works well, because there's a significant number of Jews, who tend to be geographically concentrated, and for many of them, finding another Jew is a high priority.

Many of the most popular and successful ones (judging by TV ads at least) seem to cater to those looking to get married on the soonish side. This makes sense because it's a large population in the highest need of such services, and they'll typically have the most cash. Furthermore, it's not a very deep specialization. In fact, it's arguably most of the market.

There's even Ashley Madison, which has gotten a lot of attention because it's for married people looking to have affairs with other married people (I'm not sure why it needs to be with another married person, but I guess it's safer because they understand the problems, share your need for secrecy, and probably don't want to ruin their lives and reputations either by disclosing something like an affair). I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's providing value to society, but it's definitely profitable for the owners.

There are plenty of general ones, and the first-movers with good advertising budgets seem to be leading the pack.

But tonight I saw an ad for crewdating.com, a website catering to people in the aviation industry. I have to wonder: is this too specialized, and if not, how much further can it go? It makes sense that other airline employees would understand your hectic schedule during which you're almost never home, but do aviation professionals (flight attendants, pilots, etc.) really place dating other aviation professionals as a high priority? Does having a similar career really add a lot to the feasibility or enjoyability or probability of success of a relationship if you work for Delta? As near as I can tell, this service has only two things going for it: (1) people who work in aviation probably need a partner who's very understanding of the demands of the job and (2) because of their extraordinary relative mobility, geography isn't as big a boundary. By this I mean that someone in Philly could date someone in New York a lot more easily if they're both aviation professionals than if they're both lab technicians in the same cities.

As I think about social networking sites, and specifically ones looking to create high-value connections (dating sites primarily, but also in a way, job/employee search sites), I'm growing increasingly fascinated. I find myself wishing there were large amounts of data about these sites freely available. What aspects of the phenomenon will be a fad, and what components will mature to form a core part of the new social order of our increasingly connected, integrated, globalized, and technologically sophisticated society?

My Statistic

OK, I'm sick of people using statistics and not understanding what they're talking about. To make fun of the entire population, I will hereby do the exact same thing in a manner so obviously stupid you will have no choice but to feel mocked:

50% of people who get married get divorced. So if you're married, ask yourself, "Do I want to get divorced?" And if you don't want to get divorced, chances are your spouse does. There. That oughta haunt you.

Everyone who's been on a plane knows that they spend a good amount of time preparing passengers for "the event of a water landing." It's certainly a high percentage of the talk passengers get about safety and what to be prepared for.

This week's water landing was apparently the first in 150 MILLION commercial flights.

And looking at the pictures, no one seemed to be blowing into those yellow life jackets with the red straw or hugging their seat cushions tightly. Can we modernize the safety talk? How about "in the event of an attempted terrorist highjacking, everyone rush the offender and take the bastard down." Or some better advice...have the experts work on it.

My 2008

So as 2008 winds down, I'm left wondering, how will it be remembered? In some ways it was monumental, in others, not a lot happened.

It will most certainly be remembered for the election. A huge pivotal point for the world, whose new most powerful person would have been not even allowed to vote a few generations ago, and could have even been owned as property a few generations before that. This may be the first time in millennia that the most powerful person in the world was black, and it was all decided in 2008 (though the transition won't happen for a few weeks). I still remember watching the returns from the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary like it was yesterday (January 3rd and 8th, 2008).

2008 will also be remembered for China's reemergence. After centuries of diminishing self-imposed isolation, China finally pulled back a curtain--not an iron one, but a cultural one at least--and hosted the world this summer when they put on the Olympic games. The opening ceremony was a beautiful work of art of unprecedented magnitude, and as much as HALF the world's population saw at least some part of it. China and the world welcomed each other back as billions of people participated in some small way.

To me, and to many current and former Philadelphians, 2008 will be remembered as the year our city once again became a world champion, as the Philadelphia Phillies won baseball's World Series. Ending a city-wide drought of 100 consecutive major sports seasons without a championship, in a way our city too stepped back onto the world stage (or at least the national one). Pride of Philadelphians grew in many forms this year, as 2008 was also the first year of Mayor Michael Nutter's first term. In a city in constant need of a miracle, this year may be seen the same way Rendell's first term was seen: the beginning of an answer to collective prayers. Already half the battle may have been won, as even in the face of a hobbled economy and potentially crippling deficits on the horizon, Philadelphians are certainly more hopeful and optimistic than they were a year ago.

Surely 2008 will be remembered for the collapse of the financial system and the havoc created by short-sighted, short-term incentives. Entire schools of economic thought may grow out of the events of this year (which one could argue started in August of 2007). It would be nice if the crisis were remembered as a footnote to the Age of Obama, but I think it will unfortunately stand on its own in the eyes of history.

What else will 2008 be remembered for?

(If you were planning on making history worthy of the list, you've got 15 hours. Good luck.)

My Library Idea

As many people know, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter has proposed, among MANY other things, closing down 11 branches of Philly's Free Library system. This is in the face of huge current and looming budget deficits, projected to exceed a billion dollars in the next five years.

Mayor Nutter has always been a HUGE supporter of libraries, so I have no doubt he deems them necessary, but he's still taking a lot of heat for this particular part of his cost-cutting/revenue-increasing proposal. He's especially taking heat for removing reliable, free access to the internet from poor neighborhoods, and people are (correctly) making the argument that the elimination of modern libraries makes the digital divide harder to overcome. Furthermore, people use library computers to do everything from attaining some technological literacy to searching for jobs.

What's interesting is that most of the arguments against the library closures are about the computers, not the books (Nutter has said he will increase bookmobile service to neighborhoods losing libraries, though bookmobiles, while better than nothing, are more suited for sparse rural areas than dense urban ones in my opinion). I'm wondering if there isn't another halfway compromise the city could make:

Free internet cafes. What if the library opened up a branch with NO BOOKS? What if there were smaller branches of the Free Library of Philadelphia that were essentially public internet cafes? They would be smaller and less expensive to run, and still provide what seems to me to be the majority of the benefits that protesters are worried about losing in these branch closings.

Now, I'm a big fan of books too, but during what must be a relentlessly pragmatic period (in a city that already has more libraries per capita than almost any other major American city, by the way), maybe library-based free internet cafes (heck, you don't even need the cafe part) would work well as a compromise.

Thoughts?

My Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy

For those of you who don't know, the US Armed Forces have a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals serving in the various branches. This means they can serve, as long as they don't tell anyone they're homosexuals. If they're openly gay, they can't serve in the military. That's current policy.

It's taken a lot of heat (and it's in the news as the Obama administration might eventually try to change it). Sure, allowing gays to serve openly would be a mild disruption, but so was allowing blacks and women to serve in any capacity. OK, so the military isn't an agent for social change, but that doesn't mean it can't keep up with the times and contemporary values. Yes, the military is a conservative institution, but you can't use that as a cloak for being intolerant. And why does being gay mean you can't control yourself?

Well, let me ask my readers this: does having separate male and female facilities make sense? If the rational, tolerant and enlightened answer is yes, then I submit it may be rational, tolerant and enlightened to not let gays serve in the military at all. This may be a shocking statement coming from a guy with a gay best friend, but hear me out--it's not prejudice. IF we accept that coed everything is unacceptable in the military, the question is, why? Presumably because you don't want certain shared facilities among people who could possibly be sexually attracted to each other. It would cause problems beyond what letting blacks in the military caused. Not just a disruption you get used to, but a permanent tension and distraction among soldiers (after all, how many young men and women in good health and of fighting age get used to people their sexually attracted to enough that they can treat them as members of the opposite gender invariably without hesitation? We wouldn't last very long as a species if that happened). With letting women serve, there was a simple solution: separate facilities. But with homosexuals, it presents a problem. With 2 separate facilities, you can have all the straight men in one area and all the straight women in another without risking a sexual attraction. BUT, once you start dealing with homosexuals instead of heterosexuals, you can never have more than TWO PEOPLE in a room without someone falling into another person's gender preference.

So by saying gays should serve openly--or at all--we're not just saying that homosexuals are every bit as restrained and professional as heterosexuals (I don't think many people would have a problem with that, and people could get over their discomfort with homosexuality in general), we're also saying that homosexuals are MORE restrained and professional than heterosexuals, a position for which there is no evidence.

So I say, if we let gays serve openly in the military, and I'm not necessarily against it, why not allow coed everything? If it's OK for two homosexuals of the same gender to shower together, why not a straight man and a woman? Or are there more double standards than we want to admit in our push for equality everywhere?