Highly Linkable

Terry Anderson is thinking sensibly about climate change. (HT: Don Boudreaux)

Speaking of Don Boudreaux, he has a fantastic new series of videos out as part of MRUniversity's "Everyday Economics" series. I highly recommend these short, extremely well-made videos.

Steve Landsburg points out an amazing physical-world derivation of pi. Here is the full paper. I don't suggest you pull this little nugget out the next time you're gambling, Eddie, gambling money on pool games, but it is pretty cool. Aside from being impressed by this myself, I think it demonstrates something about political economy. It is understandable that because brilliant people can discover truths like this other people believe brilliant people can discover the truths about how to govern other (not-so-brilliant) people's lives.

Two from Megan McArdle: In the first she offers an explanation as to why so many people are saving too little (AKA, building too much personal debt). In the second she talks about the social media frenzy surrounding the Supreme Courts' Hobby Lobby decision and how the calls of BOYCOTT! are very unlikely to actually succeed. This supports a thesis I have had about how the world has changed. To wit: Cults and cult leaders are less likely today while riots are more likely. Negative, tipping-point events can be blown out of portion and escalated more easily today, but they're not as long-lasting and sustainable as they were in the past. In the past information restriction, a critical tool of the cult, was much more easily accomplished. Hence, it is easier to incite a mob, but harder to inspire a movement.

I plan on reading the new book The Frackers: The Outrageous Inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters and this recent EconTalk encouraged my excitement for it. But John Tamny at Forbes raises a few negatively critical points that are worth considering.

Vintage Photos:
Moscow in 1968
Street scenes of NYC in the 60s and 70s
More street scenes of NYC in the 70s
Other color photos of NYC in the 70s
Besides being very cool to look back at these places and people in the past, there is something I notice--more evidence against the Great Stagnation theory. For one we can see some stark differences between life back then and modern life in these cities. The second is a bit more subtle. In the previous era the USSR could appear to compete with the USA economically (e.g., having a large number of cars, the world's biggest X, etc.). In the current era the shortcomings are too obvious. Life today in the USA is filled with so many creature comforts available to so many of us, that in the comparison we rightfully consider Moscow as the capital of a undeveloped economy.

Communication Breakdown

I have been thinking lately about steps one can take to advance the cause of liberty. Early July is an appropriate time for this type of thinking, but there is never a wrong time. I'm thinking about small steps rather than a stairway to heaven, and it probably has to begin with how we converse with those we seek or should be seeking to win over.

With a nod to Arnold Kling's Three Languages of Politics, most of our efforts to communicate with our ideological adversaries float like a lead balloon. Libertarian arguments often strike conservatives and progressives as poison by reinforcing their respective fears of barbarism and oppression. Allow me to propose some antidotes. Please note that these are antidotes with limitations. The conservative so afflicted as to be a moral crusader and the progressive so burdened as to be against private property are beyond this proposal's reach.

For conservatives the narrative needs to focus on responsibility. We should show how people should be treated as responsible to make decisions for themselves regarding issues like drug use, gambling, and marriage. The responsibility angle already works for conservatives when considering issues like welfare--an able-bodied person should be ultimately responsible for his own well being and individuals should be responsible for charity. We can extend that framework to include other issues. An adult should have the responsibility to decide for himself what chemicals to put in his body, when to engage in games of chance, and who to partner with in marriage.

For progressives the narrative needs to focus on empowerment. We should show how people should be empowered to have more choice in where to send their kids to school, greater flexibility in the terms of their employment, and more options in how to save for retirement. Specifically, we need to show how our favored policy responses will help the most vulnerable.

While these techniques will not work on all issues (at least not in isolation), they may well advance the effort on many important issues.

cross posted at Liberty.me

WWCF: 3-D Immersion TV or Live Wallpaper?

Which will come first?

3-D Immersion TV

or

"Live" Wallpaper

Let me start by defining some terms. 3-D immersion TV means a television experience that transcends the current "I am watching something projected before me" to be more "I am in the middle of something occurring around me". I don't know exactly what it would look like other than think of the difference between watching a stage performance of Les Miserables on television versus actually being at the performance seated down front. Now imagine stepping on stage. 

The 3-D immersion experience (3-D I-TV) would have the action truly happening about you rather than just with depth in front of you. Perhaps it would be holographic from a device(s) located on the ceiling and floor. I think it will start with sports and then reality shows with scripted programs in large part to follow. I imagine multiple camera locations/angles such that watching the football game from home will be much like having the best seats in the house where your perspective changes as the action dictates. Imagine multiple Skycams where perhaps you choose your vantage point following the action as best suits you. There would be little worry about an important part of the play going out of screenshot--just turn your head, and you can watch the quarterback getting late-hit as the ball sails down field. 

As for "live" wallpaper (Live-Walls), this is a combination of two ideas I've had for a very long time. When I was young, I dreamed of a spherical room you could step into and suddenly be looking at a 360' x 360' view of some impressive landscape like the Grand Canyon. The camera system driving this video would be mounted on a tall, thin tower. Holding onto this dream, I was then influenced from the early Web's webcams. Molding my concept into a more practical form, I now want walls that will project whatever desirable vista I would like to surround myself with: the beach in Hawaii, Broadway in NYC, the Champs-Élysées, etc. 

Imagine what this technology does for the elderly trapped in their hospital/nursing home/prisons. Imagine how this can transform schools. Imagine how much more enjoyable your current, drab office would be. Sure this will put Big Picture Frame out of business, but the rest of us will be Soarin' Over California from our living rooms. 

The limiting factor for 3-D I-TV is probably technological, but we are getting closer and closer to holograms. The limiting factor for Live-Walls is probably more economical related to the business plan--getting to a critical mass to make the investment using existing technology worthwhile (e.g., using just flat-screen HDTVs). The ultimate desire to have entire walls that act as video screens puts technology as an additional hurdle for Live-Walls. 

I think the critical point for which has come first will be once one of these technologies is common in middle-class homes. The first may seem to face more obstacles, but this might be what "saves" TV. Imagine shopping from your home in a 3-D environment. Imagine the demand for sports and hence sports advertising. The business case for 3-D I-TV may drive its advancement. Of course there is a third possibility: that these two ideas converge in one large step toward Nozick's Experience Machine.

My guess is Live-Walls is coming first and will be within the next 10 years. 3-D I-TV follows within 5 years of Live-Walls' critical mass achievement.

What's On My DVR And On My Netflix List:

I've made a lot of progress against the ever-rising tide of television programming that beckons, but so much more work remains to be done.

If you remember from my previous post, I was ranking the comedic shows I was watching. Not much changed in the rankings as this past season progressed. "HIMYM" disappointingly but expectantly continued its slumping trend right up to the bitter end. I was an early predictor that the mother was dead. I was wrong about Ted and Robin getting together for good. I was right that it was evident the skill of the writers had run out preventing them from pulling off that ending.

On a bright note Jeff Winger did indeed right the ship of "Community"--another prediction I nailed. I think this show is basically back to original form even with the cast changes. That is an impressive feat.

"New Girl" is still probably my top show. I am equally impressed at how this show is integrating new characters.

"Louie" is amazing. This show is arguably one of the best dramas on TV as well as best comedies. Charles Grodin's appearances are apropos the quality of this show. This scene in particular was great writing--"Misery is wasted on the miserable".

Now, to the point of the post. My current to-watch list includes in no particular order:

• "Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee" - I could watch these conversations go on for hours. Each episode is too short.
• "The Middle" - Kept passing by this one. Need a marathon to catch up.
• "The Simpsons" & "Family Guy" & "Futurama"- I list these together since I have to watch them on my own sans wife. 
• "The Americans" - Still on the list. Still not started.
• "The Goldbergs" 
• "Breaking Bad" - If nothing else, doing it to keep up with the rest of society.
• "House of Cards" - Ditto
• "Mad Men" - Going back to fill in the gaps in my viewership. 

Notably off the list is "Downton Abbey". Remember, I found religion (seventh item down). 

Highly Linkable

My finger painting never looked quite this good.

I like this framework comparing networks to hierarchies. I find it captures something very true. I'll have more to say on it once I get around to starting a new meme on the blog which I will call Dimension Analysis. (HT: Arnold Kling)

Cliff Asness makes the case for HFT and indicates how some of the "facts" and "reasoning" about it might not be quite so factual or reasonable.

David Bernstein weighs in on an on-going discussion over at The Volokh Conspiracy about how legal extremist (and ridiculous) the Obama Administration has been.

Sumner argues that the American system is rigged to favor the rich. I think this is part of a natural evolution and hope to expand on this thought in an upcoming post.

The O'Bannon v. NCAA trial has ended. Michael McCann has a good summary of how the last day turned a bit in the NCAA's favor. Anyway you look at it, though, the NCAA is in a prolonged process much like a divorce where there is no winning--only degrees of losing. They have all but lost the moral/ethical argument. They have been forced to admit to being a cartel (but a good one, not like any of those other bad cartels). Like I tweeted to McCann,

@McCannSportsLaw NCAA:"If we pay players what they're worth, fans will suffer." --May win O'Bannon, but doesn't pass ethics sniff test.
— Steve Winkler (@swinkler78) June 28, 2014

They can't have it both ways in either an ethical or legal sense: the NCAA is either a consumer-harming monopolist or a labor-harming monopsonist (or both, they can fail to have it both ways).

In a different realm of sports meets law meets consumer demand, it only surprises me that this has taken until now to come about. I expect a lot more up and through a tipping point. Poor guy . . .

PS. I've made many promises in this post. I hope I can live up to them.

Going to California

It had been a long time since I had taken a road trip that far, and thankfully now after the fact I regret how long it had been and not how far this trip was. The trip was a great success. Below I'll share some of the reasons. First, a brief synopsis:

We left OKC and took I-40 west almost as far as it goes. The destination was Disneyland and Newport Beach, but as always the journey was at least part of the destination. The Grand Canyon was the highlight on the return. In between we took in many of the classic Route 66 diversions. My thoughts:

• You cannot appreciate the vastness of this country and especially the western portion without driving it. We clocked 2,980 miles round trip.
• Before we left, we each guessed how many moving trains we would see. The high guess was 40. We surpassed that number before hitting LA. The final total was 77, which was suppressed somewhat since some of the return drive was after dark.
• Not once did I hear, "Are we there yet?" Grandparents being along made it much better--specifically by having a second minivan and generally by just being there. If nothing else, it meant we outnumbered the kids four to three. DVD movies, iPads, and car swapping helped, but the kids were great in their own right. They never resisted when I wanted them to look out to see something. Chalk this up as a virtue of the dreaded screen time--they were never so bored with looking out the window as to not appreciate when something was worth looking at out the window.
• On the way out we hit the Blue Hole in Santa Rosa, Central Ave (old Route 66) in Albuquerque, Frontier Restaurant in Albuquerque, noticed the lava flows in Grants, NM and the continental divide just outside of Gallup (for some reason this concept was hard for me to grasp as a kid), the El Rancho Hotel in Gallup, the Wigwam Motel in Holbrook, a small bit of the Petrified Forest, and a great dinner for two in Flagstaff on the patio at Brix. I was very surprised by how fun and charming downtown Flagstaff is. 
• The Mouse knows what he is doing. The parks are orchestrated masterpieces. Nothing is left to chance or half effort. The staff ("cast members") make one feel as if he is Truman Burbank from "The Truman Show" where it is all meant for him. 
• California Adventure is underrated. We had apprehension of spending our second Disney day there (we had one-park-only passes). Fortunately we risked it. There was as much or more to do for each kid (2, 4, & 9) as there was in Disneyland. The crowd was not as intense; hence, the lines were shorter. Presentation-wise it is laid out better. In aggregate the rides were better. The 13-hours in this park did not seem as exhausting even though it came two-days after Disneyland (welcomed exhaustion due to thorough fun, but exhaustion nonetheless).
• Newport Beach, Balboa Island, Corona Del Mar, these places are of another realm. Truly amazing places. Disappointed to find Bluth's Banana Stand in Newport is fiction, but the ones on Balboa Island did not disappoint. 
• On the way back we skimmed the edge of Joshua Tree N.P. moving on to the surprisingly cool highway 62 from Twentynine Palms until Parker, AZ (the road reminded me of the uber-popular California Adventure ride Radiator Springs; there were stretches for miles where people had arranged rocks to form messages on the parallel-running railroad tracks), London Bridge and Lake Havasu, a really big (some might say Grand) Canyon, the rejuvenating scenery of Sedona, and another dinner for two in Flagstaff this time at Cottage Place. 
• Especially in California you can see lots of evidence of social desirability bias and poor economics (and congruently poor environmentalism) in the name of good intentions. Some apparently see it as a virtue.
• My formula for successful, stress-free travel is having a well-researched but flexible agenda, taking a go-with-the-flow attitude to both the desires of others as well as the reality on the ground, accepting that it is largely about exploration not efficient logistics (you are a wanderer not a deliveryman), and knowing when to call it a day (take breaks, rest; travel is supposed to be refreshing). Admittedly, I am not perfect at practicing this. 

Some pictures:

 

Wisdom from the Rubber Duck

On my recent travel of the holiday road I saw many, MANY a semi truck. On the back of one was a message that struck me as interesting. It read, "I get paid for all my miles. Do you?" Obviously this is an attempt at employee recruitment--not a message of disparagement. The implication is other truckers aren't getting all they can out of their particular employment arrangement. 

But an economist looks at this differently. Looked at through the eyes of the economic way of thinking, the message seems nonsensical. Let me explain. 

Suppose you are a trucker who only gets paid for the miles driven when actually delivering goods. If you cannot find a return load, you drive back to your point of origin "unpaid". Presumably this or something similar is what the message is getting at--the trucker with the "better" arrangement gets paid for the load-free return journey. But how can this be? To wit, it would be a remarkable thing if these two trucking situations were in existence at the same time with no meaningful differences between them otherwise. What we would have is a disequilibrium. Markets abhor those. They work to rectify them, and they do so quickly. 

Maybe we are witnessing the first step in movement toward the equilibrium, but that seems very unlikely. The message on the truck was probably there for some time. Yet it shouldn't take long for the message to do its work. And the solution it causes is not likely to be every trucker goes to work for the two-way paying firm. Much more likely truckers start to demand higher wages for the one-way journey or to have some other form of compensation, OR, and this is key, the competition for two-way payments bid down that type of pay. Of course, a combination of all these is the expected outcome. 

Finding an example of two truckers that seemingly are paid differently probably just means one is taking on a different wage risk/reward tradeoff. One way or another we would expect that every trucker gets paid equivalently once the proper adjustments are made. So the answer to the truck's message is "Yes, how could it not be the case?"