The Czech Stole My Idea

I hatched this very same idea of a bar with the tap at your table while I was in college. No lines. No warm beer. No waitresses hassling you. A potential business plan was a frequent topic of drunken discussion at Clodfelters. Sadly, most of my alcoholic friends shot the idea down because they thought the liability of people serving themselves was too high. Evidently, that is not a problem for the Czechs.

Also, ask me about my idea for a "Frat-Bar"...it's almost as brilliant and it is less sleezy than it sounds.

Quotable Sowell

Thomas Sowell’s latest column is a smorgasbord of quotes to live by. I’m not a religious man, but if Sowell had a church, I’d pay my pittance.

Here’s a sampling:

What is more scary than any particular candidate or policy is the gullibility of the public and their willingness to be satisfied with talking points, rather than serious arguments.

...

One way to reduce illegal immigration might be to translate some of our far left publications into Spanish and give everyone in Mexico subscriptions. After they read how terrible this country is, many may want to stay away.

...

Most people on the right have no problem understanding people on the left because many, if not most, were on the left themselves when they were younger. But many, if not most, people on the left find it inexplicable how any decent and intelligent person could be on the right.

Punish the Poor to Punish the Rich

If the 2001 tax cuts expire, as they are set to in 2010, then the marginal tax rates for American taxpayers in the lowest income bracket will increase by 50%. “Tax cuts for the rich”…..right. More here.

One of the biggest failings of fiscally conservative politicians is their complete inability to articulate and defend tax policy against populist demagoguery. In an honest, fact-filled debate minority Republicans should be able to destroy Democrats if they attempt to allow the tax cuts to expire. But if Democrats stay in power, I’m not optimistic.

Quote of the Week

From Adam Smith Institute via Mankiw:

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

Stop Making Movies About My Books!

Brother Geisel is pissed.

This must stop! This must end! Don't you see what you're doing?
You're defiling the work I spent ages accruing.
And when it's dried up and you've sucked out your pay
There'll be no going back to a simpler day,

When your mom would give Horton a voice extra deep,
And turn the last page as you drifted to sleep.
Instead you'll have boxed sets, shit movies, and… well,
You'll have plenty to watch while you're burning in hell.

Weird Al

Al Gore is catching flack from scientists who should be his biggest fan:

In the very same week that Gore launched a $300 million public relations campaign to convince Americans that "together we can solve the climate crisis," prominent climate alarmist Tom Wigley essentially endorsed President Bush’s approach to global warming while criticizing that of Gore’s co-Nobelist, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC.

…

President Bush (so far) has avoided the sort of futile mandatory clampdown on CO2 emissions supported by Gore but that Wigley realizes will be impossible to implement without halting vital economic growth.

You almost have to feel bad for Al Gore — being outsmarted on his own home turf by George Bush.

…

Rather than wasting $300 million on a public relations campaign to promote an unrealistic and impractical approach to the dubious problem of manmade climate change, why not donate that money to the U.N. and help prevent real people from starving today?

More on Smoking

MCC has got me thinking about cigarette taxes. I wouldn't go so far as to say I am pro-smoking. But I do thinking smokers get a bad rap. If smoking is really as bad as we make it out to be, then why haven't we long since made it illegal?

Oregon's "Healthy Kids" initiative (very subtle name) is an attempt to raise cigarette tax by nearly $1 to help pay (as if it mattered where the $$ come from) for children's health insurance. The voters soundly rejected it on the ballot. But our oh-so-very well-meaning and progressive governor isn't giving up. Here is a quote from his State of the State speech:

"Will the tobacco companies -- and their allies -- pour millions more into another slick, deceptive, anti-children campaign? Probably -- it's in their DNA," he said. "And that is why we have to rally around Oregon's uninsured children with no less passion and determination than we rally around our own children when they're sick."

Yes. Tobacco companies, smokers, and the majority of voters who opposed the measure hate children. In fact, I am for denying healthcare to ALL poor children.

If this is such an important piece of legislation, why should it be funded on the backs of smokers, who themselves are disproportionately poor. It seems to me that it is Gov. Kulongoski, and politicians like him, who are being slick and deceptive.

Update: Seems everyone is thinking about this. Here is a rundown of the cost fo cigarettes around the globe from Gadling. Cigarettes cost $0.32 in Kazkhstan.

Smoking externalities

Over at Reason Magazine, Jacob Sullivan lambasts a proposed hike in New York state's tax on cigarettes. Sullivan says that this policy will adversely affect the poor, who are predominately those that smoke. The point is well taken. But then he suggests that this is not a "progressive" policy. If, by that, he means that those with more means pay less of the burden, I get it. But if he means "progressive" in the sense of progress, I would argue that it is progressive.

I can't speak for what New York plans to do with the tax revenue generated from the increase, but if it is used to offset some portion of the healthcare costs associated with smoking (particularly those costs paid by the state to cover the bills of those unable to pay for their health-related costs) , then this is really just a pigouvian tax. Even if the revenue is not redirected to Medicaid, though, it does address an externality. There is a social cost of second hand smoke that is not incorporated into the price of a pack of smokes. Sure, it's not direct, but this essentially captures at least part of that cost.

I understand that this kind of policy is objectionable in that a paternalistic government is trying to influence the decision-making of individuals. Libertarians typically recoil at such policies. But this tax also internalizes some of the externalities of smoking. And that kind of progress in the tax code is something I would embrace.

I'm skeptical too

Russ Roberts doubts Hilary Clinton's story on Leno the other night. Couldn't agree more.

I have to say, apart from truthfulness, I really don't like the way she tells a story. She always seems desperately sappy. She makes me extremely uncomfortable.

And there's a good (fairly obvious) economics lesson there.

Hope for DSM

Several people I know are finishing up theses designed around energy conservation initiatives. Most of them touch only tangentially on the concept of Demand Side Management (DSM), the decidedly unsexy concept representing the lowest hanging fruit in terms of energy conservation. DSM proponents suggest that we could dramatically reduce the amount of energy and natural resources we consume just by simple measures that leverage the power of the market (with some regulation thrown in). For example, charging a higher price for electricity used during the day, or providing some incentive for factories to run at night instead of during the day has been shown to reduce overall demand.

Today John Tierney has an article in the NYTimes suggesting that subtle social psychology has worked to accomplish the same ends in California. A smiley face on the electronic thermostat in households lets residents know that they are consuming energy below the mean to cool their homes. Frowning faces on the thermostats in high-consuming homes have prompted those residents to actually drive their consumption down. It looks like you can temper demand without having to go through the contentious process of implementing specific daytime demand management tools.

This is good news, because if I remember correctly, one of our classmates has shown statistically that increasing the money spent on demand side management has the opposite of the effect intended on energy consumption.


HT: Free Exchange

Green Collar Jobs

"It's odd how the global-warming crowd styles itself as the fact-based side on environmental arguments. Yet for years, the greenies have argued that they can suppress supply, pass magic-wand regulations to develop imaginative technology -- and their policies will be great for the economy and create jobs."


Colbert Report did an interview the other night about creating "green collar" jobs. This whole concept is a total fallacy. Creating jobs is NOT good. Innovation IS good, but fabricating a demand that doesn't exist makes an economy worse off, not better off. It could be that the demand should be stimulated by internalizing current externalities from emissions. But, I repeat, that is NOT good for the economy

Tracy Morgan on Barrack

A couple of weeks ago Tina Fey went on Weekend Update and proclaimed her support for Hilary Clinton, saying among other things that "bitch is the new black" (you must have heard this by now). It was actually a pretty funny segment. Anyway, Tracy Morgan was a guest on Update recently, and he took the opportunity to respond. It's hysterical; check it out here. Best line I've heard in a long time: "Bitch may be the new black, but black is the new President, bitch."

Bullshit!

Penn and Teller with Norman Borlaug on genetically engineered crops. Penn argues that Dr. Borlaug is the greatest human….ever. Borlaug is an agriculture scientist credited with starting the “Green Revolution” (but not the type of “green” you might be thinking of). When he won the Nobel Peace Prize Borlaug was credited with saving over 1 billion lives through his contribution to agriculture biotechnology. I had the fortune of meeting Dr. Borlaug last summer when the 2007 recipient of the World Food Prize was announced (kind of the "Nobel Prize of Agriculture").

Beware: you will feel infinitely less cheery about your trip to the organic market after watching the video.

Reason 3.45 Not to be Ashamed of Your Thesis

Uhrig, N., "Cinema Is Good For You":

Using data from wave 12 of the British Household Panel Study, I find that cinema attendance has strong positive effects on happiness and stable negative effects on self-reporting of anxiety or depression, even when controlling for various socio-demographic and economic factors.

Or, alternatively, happy people watch more movies. That actually sounds like an equally groundbreaking finding. Maybe I’ll write that paper.

Alternative title for this post: Reason 1,529 Not to Trust a Sociologist.

HT: Bryan Caplan

Quote of the Day

H.L. Mencken:

"The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."