I used to be a tech support weenie for an ISP that shall remain nameless (hint: AOL). It was drudgery, particularly during the holidays. Vast swaths of Americans got new computers and had absolutely no idea how to use them. Worst was when the sign-on servers would go down and I would field literally hundreds of calls per hour: “Yes, we’re aware of the prolem.” “No, I can’t do anything about it.” “No, I can’t reboot the internet.”
The thing is, when you’re one of a thousand techs working in a nameless office in the middle of flyover country, there’s an incentive to give advice you might otherwise think twice about giving. In fact, this Penny Arcade comic really takes me back.
I just wanted to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving, wherever you may find yourself. At the risk of sounding overly sentimental, I think Thanksgiving really is all about taking a step back and thinking about all the things you’re grateful to have. Today, among other things, I think I’m one of the luckiest people in the world to have a loving fiancée and a soccer-ball-crazed dog.
The problem with rational choice economics is that assumes people act…well…rationally. If you assume that rationality can be equated with self-interest then rational choice economics says people only act in their own interest. People don’t pay $10 for a candy bar. People don’t run around asking their bosses for a salary decrease. Then why do they vote? An individual vote has essentially zero chance of effecting the outcome of even small-town elections, so why bother?
Andrew Gelman and Noah Kaplan think they have an answer. If you “decouple” self-interest from rational choice, then maybe it makes sense to vote after all.
The Chicago Tribune has endorsed Barack Obama, a Democrat, for the first time in the paper’s history. What’s most interesting to me is that the paper says what I’ve figured about the man for a long time, that he’s a pragmatist first, and that he will govern with a more centrist hand than anyone else supposes. As the paper notes, he’s known as a “University of Chicago Democrat.” If you’re not an Obama fan, this one is definitely worth a read.
Paul Krugman writes about fiscal policy and the current recession. I agree with him in principle; the government should use fiscal policy in times like these to keep us out of a deep recession. The problem is that they can’t stop when it’s time to put down the checkbook. I’m reminded of the parable of the scorpion and the frog.
I’m in the “Friends of Liberty” group at school (no, I didn’t come up with the name) where we discuss…um…liberty, among other things. It’s not so much that I agree with most über-libertarian ideals (or even a majority) but that I enjoy debate. I believe that government intervention can be good, though it usually isn’t. I believe socialized medicine will save us money in the long run because demand is inelastic and there are significant information costs in the market for private health care. But I also know that markets are a good thing™ that should be implemented wherever possible. I like the idea of school vouchers and eliminating teachers’ unions because equality of opportunity shouldn’t mean that we pin everyone down to the same substandard public education level (not that I necessarily agree with absolute equality of opportunity either). Vouchers can create markets. Markets are good.
What I also like is a good conversation with someone who disagrees with me (even if only on the margin). I don’t like being told I’m wrong, I like being told why I’m wrong. Enter Chris Coyne. For the past two weeks, one of my reading assignments for the FoL group was the excellent After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy, which culminated in a visit by Professor Coyne to Auraria Campus.
A few nights ago I was lucky enough to have dinner with Coyne, where we had an excellent dialog on the law, liberty, and just about everything else you could discuss in between. I didn’t really glean one particular lesson from the evening, other than the fact that Coyne is a damn smart guy and, although I disagree with some of his conclusions, he makes compelling arguments. That, and I highly recomment After War.
An insightful post from, of all places, bodybuilding.com (If you know me, you know I’m clearly not a regular reader). The author discusses the simple concept that by charging money for checked bags, airlines are simultaneously shooting themselves in the foot by creating an increased demand for carry on bags that result in boarding delays.
Well, not really. If you’ve been paying attention, you know that recession fears (read: we’re already in one, in spite of definitions) aren’t limited to just the U.S. Most economists have been talking about the looming slowdown in the rest of the world as brought on in part by the collapsing U.S. credit markets.The idea that foreign markets can insulate themselves from shocks like the one we’re experiencing is a myth, as the past year has shown (see: Northern Rock).
