As a follow-up to my lottery post, I feel the need to clarify that I do not agree with statutory age restrictions. Why should we be allowed to drive when 16 if we don't have the skills? Why shouldn't a 12 year old who operates machinery and a truck on his family's farm be able to drive? You should have to pass a proficiency test that's worth a shit (not driver's ed) in order to get a license. That might cut down on the number of accidents, eh?
Why are early admit college students kept out of places that are "18+"? If the age limit is meant to serve as a proxy for maturity, etc., then obviously a 16 year old college student is more ready for whatever content than a 19 year old unemployed high school dropout.
Why do we decide that you can't go to a casino until you're 18? Won't you realize it's a bad thing to do if you lose all your money? Maybe you're good at counting cards and can run the blackjack table at 11 years old...WHY can't you try your hand?
As for drinking...why 21 in the States? Other countries have hardly any restrictions on alcohol consumption and they have lower rates of drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and other related problems. However, a German friend of mine was telling me that the driving age over there is 18 or 19, so on the weekends, high school kids get together and steal cars, much like our high school kids get together and drink.
Maybe there is something to the age of consent laws, but I think they're fundamentally flawed.
18&65 ok, 17&25 not ok? Strange. I guess we can't expect people to make certain decisions on the spot, but I think that if a 15 year old has a week to think over the decision to waive legal rights in order to go skydiving, that should be more than equivalent to letting an 18 year old decide on the spot.
Bottom line: I guess it's just way easier to impose an arbitrary age restriction and let everyone be subject to it instead of incurring the cost of evaluating everyone based on merit.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Front Running
"It takes 8% more energy to lead than to follow" - Bill Bowerman to Steve Prefontaine in Without Limits. Bowerman was trying to coach Pre out of the habit of front-running. Bowerman thought Pre could perform better in some races by drafting instead of letting the other guys draft him. I'm not sure how accurate the 8% figures is...I imagine it's a lot higher in biking.
Anyway, I was wondering if taking the lead uses more energy in signaling games. When you have a price leader, they will suffer lower sales in the initial period before other firms raise their price and follow suit. The close-behind followers may even incur some of this cost, which is not true in running. The cost for the close-behinds in running is that they may be going slower than they could, which would result in a slower finishing time...but isn't the goal to win the race?
Taking on a leadership role in beginning a romantic relationship can also be costly (maybe more than 8%!). The person who makes the first move risks looking foolish or revealing information about themselves which may cost them a strategic move later. Maybe that's why many such signals are weak initially.
Every race must have a leader, although this leader can change. One firm has to move first if prices are to change (from the assumption that all firms are charging the same price in an oligopolistic setting). A relationship may never get started if one of the interested parties does not signal that they want to begin. These (signaling) leaders make everyone else better off without receiving compensation except for what they gain by their own actions.
Sometimes the leadership role can go back and forth. In a race, the top 2-3 runners can rotate the lead until someone can't keep up any more. In the market, it's hard enough to establish one price leader that once they are established, it isn't feasible to alternate firms (except in a duopoly case where the leader can take back their new price if the other firm does not follow). However, in the starting of a relationship, it is impossible to alternate the lead with the other person. Once taken, the leader either wins the race or trips over the steeple and falls face first into the water pit.
Anyway, I was wondering if taking the lead uses more energy in signaling games. When you have a price leader, they will suffer lower sales in the initial period before other firms raise their price and follow suit. The close-behind followers may even incur some of this cost, which is not true in running. The cost for the close-behinds in running is that they may be going slower than they could, which would result in a slower finishing time...but isn't the goal to win the race?
Taking on a leadership role in beginning a romantic relationship can also be costly (maybe more than 8%!). The person who makes the first move risks looking foolish or revealing information about themselves which may cost them a strategic move later. Maybe that's why many such signals are weak initially.
Every race must have a leader, although this leader can change. One firm has to move first if prices are to change (from the assumption that all firms are charging the same price in an oligopolistic setting). A relationship may never get started if one of the interested parties does not signal that they want to begin. These (signaling) leaders make everyone else better off without receiving compensation except for what they gain by their own actions.
Sometimes the leadership role can go back and forth. In a race, the top 2-3 runners can rotate the lead until someone can't keep up any more. In the market, it's hard enough to establish one price leader that once they are established, it isn't feasible to alternate firms (except in a duopoly case where the leader can take back their new price if the other firm does not follow). However, in the starting of a relationship, it is impossible to alternate the lead with the other person. Once taken, the leader either wins the race or trips over the steeple and falls face first into the water pit.
A Note on Recessions
There's been a lot of talk recently about recession. Housing market's down. Stock market's bearish. You didn't get everything you wanted for Christmas. What's going to happen? Will you lose your job?
A recession is nothing to worry about. People hear "recession" and think "depression." Let's define recession. It is the part of the business cycle where growth in output is below the long-run trend. I should also make clear that they are a very natural part of the business cycle. It is also defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months" and "negative real economic growth for two (or more) consecutive quarters." What's that mean? It means business is not booming. Is it anything to worry about? Not immediately. Prolonged recession is called "depression."
A funny thing about recessions is that they can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Start talking about them, then people get scared to spend too much money. They aren't buying stuff...firms cut down on production and violá: something. I don't want to call it a recession because the definition of recession is such that you don't really know that you are in one until a little while later.
Recessions come and go naturally. A federal attempt to end recession can end to amplifying fluctuations in the business cycle, which is generally regarded as undesirable. Nick tells me that the tax refund check stimulus package was approved and we can all expect around $500-600. Not very much when compared to our $13+ Trillion economy (around 1.15% by my calculations). Someone said that this won't be effective because a majority of that money will be spent at Wal-Mart, which gets most of its real goods overseas...therefore, we're not boosting GDP (I'm going to assume that WM doesn't have to hire more people to handle this mild surge in spending which probably won't even generate an extra trip to WM, on average). I'm probably going to save 90% of any federal refund I get...
Recessions can have a positive effect, by putting inefficient companies out of business, thereby stopping those companies from inefficiently using resources. This could be bad for your employment prospects if you work for a sloppy company or you yourself do sloppy work for a good company.
Recessions also present opportunity for people with money to capitalize on the misfortunes of others. Take the housing market for example. If you have the money on hand, you can get great deals on houses right now. It's the time to buy.
A recession is nothing to worry about. People hear "recession" and think "depression." Let's define recession. It is the part of the business cycle where growth in output is below the long-run trend. I should also make clear that they are a very natural part of the business cycle. It is also defined as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months" and "negative real economic growth for two (or more) consecutive quarters." What's that mean? It means business is not booming. Is it anything to worry about? Not immediately. Prolonged recession is called "depression."
A funny thing about recessions is that they can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Start talking about them, then people get scared to spend too much money. They aren't buying stuff...firms cut down on production and violá: something. I don't want to call it a recession because the definition of recession is such that you don't really know that you are in one until a little while later.
Recessions come and go naturally. A federal attempt to end recession can end to amplifying fluctuations in the business cycle, which is generally regarded as undesirable. Nick tells me that the tax refund check stimulus package was approved and we can all expect around $500-600. Not very much when compared to our $13+ Trillion economy (around 1.15% by my calculations). Someone said that this won't be effective because a majority of that money will be spent at Wal-Mart, which gets most of its real goods overseas...therefore, we're not boosting GDP (I'm going to assume that WM doesn't have to hire more people to handle this mild surge in spending which probably won't even generate an extra trip to WM, on average). I'm probably going to save 90% of any federal refund I get...
Recessions can have a positive effect, by putting inefficient companies out of business, thereby stopping those companies from inefficiently using resources. This could be bad for your employment prospects if you work for a sloppy company or you yourself do sloppy work for a good company.
Recessions also present opportunity for people with money to capitalize on the misfortunes of others. Take the housing market for example. If you have the money on hand, you can get great deals on houses right now. It's the time to buy.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Too Many Sandwiches...umm, I Mean, Shoes.
I was thinking about it, and I have a ridiculous amount of shoes. But they're all used for something...here's a list of the pairs:
2 Dress shoes: black, brown
3 Rainbow flip-flops
2 cleats: soccer, baseball
2 current running shoes: brooks, saucony
2 racing flats: 5k-1/2 marathon and 10k-full marathon
1 cross country spikes
1 bike shoes (SPD)
2 boots: black, brown
1 rain boots
1 yard shoes
1 work/attic shoes
2-3? old running shoes that I just wear around 'cuz they're comfortable
~20 total. That's pretty outlandish.
2 Dress shoes: black, brown
3 Rainbow flip-flops
2 cleats: soccer, baseball
2 current running shoes: brooks, saucony
2 racing flats: 5k-1/2 marathon and 10k-full marathon
1 cross country spikes
1 bike shoes (SPD)
2 boots: black, brown
1 rain boots
1 yard shoes
1 work/attic shoes
2-3? old running shoes that I just wear around 'cuz they're comfortable
~20 total. That's pretty outlandish.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Carded for Lotto
Why do we ID people who try to buy a lotto ticket? I say let everyone buy a lotto ticket. Just make sure you check ID if they win and come to claim money. Underage people will learn that they won't be able to collect all their money (they could pay someone to collect the money for them, but it would have to be a trusted individual). Underage buyers will learn soon enough that they shouldn't waste their money.
Friday, January 25, 2008
On Why Being Bored Makes You Lame
Being bored makes you lame. That's right...are you bored? Then you're lame. Don't believe me? Ask my brother. Still don't believe me? Ask my mother.
Hopefully you're actively involved in reading this post hence not bored.
The basic idea is that you should be able to find something engaging to do if you are not lame. On the spur of the moment, you can read or fix something or go somewhere or talk to someone. Do research, make plans, or volunteer. You can workout or do homework or yardwork, alternatively, start (or continue) writing the great American novel...maybe cook or eat, maybe play or listen to music. Most of the above activities can be accomplished without anyone else's help; however friends help you not be so lame (as long as you don't hang out with lame people).
I think the last time I was bored was for about 4-5 hours back in high school. I was suffering from a post-good-time low. I was overstimulated and the comedown was pretty bad. I can't remember what I started doing to get over the boredom, but I'm sure it was an activity. Basically, it's hard to be bored if you're doing something (worthwhile/meaningful and not dull/repetitive). If you tell me to do X when I get bored, don't expect me to do X (I might do it anyway, without being bored).
I concede that we all possess the capacity to be bored, but the more creative and driven among us (me being of the latter persuasion) never fulfill that capacity.
Hopefully you're actively involved in reading this post hence not bored.
The basic idea is that you should be able to find something engaging to do if you are not lame. On the spur of the moment, you can read or fix something or go somewhere or talk to someone. Do research, make plans, or volunteer. You can workout or do homework or yardwork, alternatively, start (or continue) writing the great American novel...maybe cook or eat, maybe play or listen to music. Most of the above activities can be accomplished without anyone else's help; however friends help you not be so lame (as long as you don't hang out with lame people).
I think the last time I was bored was for about 4-5 hours back in high school. I was suffering from a post-good-time low. I was overstimulated and the comedown was pretty bad. I can't remember what I started doing to get over the boredom, but I'm sure it was an activity. Basically, it's hard to be bored if you're doing something (worthwhile/meaningful and not dull/repetitive). If you tell me to do X when I get bored, don't expect me to do X (I might do it anyway, without being bored).
I concede that we all possess the capacity to be bored, but the more creative and driven among us (me being of the latter persuasion) never fulfill that capacity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
