F1 Post Bahrain Grand Prix

Now that the third round of the 2007 Formula 1 season is over, we can start to see where the teams are stacking up.

One of the meme’s that the commentators circulate on a weekly basis is that how the budgets of Toyota and Honda don’t really offer the results that you think such large sums of money would. On the other hand, I would still contend that the budgets of BMW, McLaren-Mercedes, and Ferrari aren’t exactly cheap.

2007 Constructors Championship
Pos Constructor Points

1 McLaren-Mercedes 44

2 Ferrari 39

3 BMW 18

4 Renault 9

5 Toyota 5

6 Williams-Toyota 2

7 Red Bull-Renault 0

7= Honda 0

7= Super Aguri-Honda 0

7= STR-Ferrari 0

7= Spyker-Ferrari 0

By the way, Jarno Trulli finished 7th in the race for Toyota. Ralf Schumacher struggled all weekend and finished 12th. I think Toyota – and Honda for that matter – is in a tough spot. Everyone has essentially written them off as Grand Prix winners. However, if (a strong if) and when they start contending for wins, everyone will simply say, “Well, look at their budgets, it’s about time.”

And hey, maybe it is about time. But in Formula 1, it’s a tough market.

(Photo from Toyota F1)

More on Farm Subsidies

Bryan Caplan has more on farm subsidies. Unless you’re actually a farmer, it’s hard to continue to argue for them…unless your entire constituency is comprised of farmers.

Fundamentalism and Homosexuality

This is yet another entry about the creeping in of fundamentalism into who knows…maybe a church that you go to; it is most definitely creeping into mainstream Christian media.

Last night, my small group got onto the topic of homosexuality. They feel the need for confrontation within the church. According to them and their church, gay patrons shouldn’t be allowed to become members until they repent (i.e. turn away from sin, or rather, from being gay).

But, lately, we’ve been finding out that homosexuality is within the genes. That is to say, if you so choose to invoke deity, God made us to be gay or straight.

But fundamentalism doesn’t allow for this. There within lies a paradox. God made these people to have that specific sexual orientation, but the fundamentalist belief structure wants them to change, to repent. But, God made them that way didn’t He? And who are we to try to change God’s plan?

And if you believe in free will, let me direct you to Scott Adams, who might change your mind on that topic. Also, let me ask you how you even believe in a deity and reconcile that with free-will.

And I put forth that thought experiment to the small group. I asked them that if we found out prior to someone’s birth that they would be homosexual, would they choose to change the sexual orientation of people (while in the womb). You could not believe the immediate responses of, “no’s.” That is to say, the responses seem to say that we need to “teach” heterosexuality, and that anything else is a sin. In terms of sin, and repentance, then it requires a conscious decision to change sexual orientation, which I again wonder if it would be even possible.

Here’s the thing, as a heterosexual, I can’t imagine my sexual orientation ever being changed. So, how am I to expect that from the vice-versa situation?

Nevertheless, it all goes back to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is right, and anything else is simply wrong. No questions. No pondering.

Also, it’s fundamentalism that gives incentive for churches to convert homosexuals. That is to say, if a fundamentalist church were to allow homosexuals to attend services without confrontation, that church would see their allowance of gay attendance as permission of homosexuality. After that, the fundamentalist church fears that it would lose grips on other “sins.” So, if the church has all these clear-cut sins laid out, it can’t allow for margin or doubt in any one area.

Toyota Finishes 7th

Well, Jarno Trulli finished 7th for Toyota in this weekend’s Grand Prix race in Malaysia. Ralf Schumacher finished 15th after suffering a slow-bleeding tire puncture during the race.

The weekend saw once again the Toyota team being somewhat written off entirely for the race and qualifying due to their mid-pack performance during practice. However, all things considered, Toyota seems to think of itself as becoming the best of the rest, while possibly later in the season being able to close the gap towards the top three teams (McLaren Mercedes, Ferrari, and BMW). I can’t wait to see what comes of those aspirations.

The real big surprise was from the weekend was the McLaren-Mercedes 1-2 finish put on by Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton. Ferrari had a de-tuned Engine in Kimi Raikonnen’s car and Felipe Massa made a mistake trying to overtake Lewis Hamilton earlier in the race, from which he did not recover. The improved pace of the McLaren proved enough to keep the Ferrari’s at bay during the race.

(Image taken from Toyota-f1.com)

Music Review: Traffic and Weather

It never ceases to amaze me how both Adam Schlesinger and Chris Collingwood can so consistently craft together such wonderful pop songs.

Fountains of Wayne’s latest release Traffic and Weather - continues on their tradition of proper pop-rock song crafting. Once again, like their previous albums, they manage to fit in a great mix of songs that differ in tempo and message.

I find it difficult to listen to their music and not feel good. My personal favorite is their second track, “92 Subaru.” As a Subaru owner myself I can’t help but identify with the song. The link for the album above will also allow you to listen to samples of the album, just like Amazon.

Orphan Disease Realization

I just saw a Frontline documentary last night on ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) that hit on the unfortunate funding matter of how ALS is an orphan disease. A fact that I was unaware of.

It's these few times when I’m reminded of when the government does something that I really like, such as the Orphan Drug Act. (As an aside; I’ve mentioned the ODA once before.) But let me also say that this documentary also shows how foundations can get far as well on donations and operating as a non-profit. Also, I'm personally always skeptical as to when the government should give subsidies, but on the Orphan Drug Act, I'm very approving of the legislation.

More on the SEC and Section 404

As I’ve documented many times in the past on this blog, Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 has its ups and downs, and most of it deals with which side you work for.

In case you thought no one was thinking about the implications on business anymore, this Washington Post article suggests otherwise.

One of my quarrels with section 404 is that it has the ability to create a false security blanket. Remember that at Enron, if only people/investors had looked more closely at the financials sooner, they would have seen the imminent demise. And in my opinion we’ve created a whole bunch of rules for companies to follow that we’re still not sure are exactly effective.

Rally de Portugal

The Rally de Portugal finished up this past weekend, and after watching the coverage I must say that it was quite eventful.

We can take a look at the result from the rally’s official site:

1. Sebastien Loeb/Daniel Elena Citroen C4 3:53:33.1
2. Petter Solberg/Phil Mills Subaru Impreza WRC +3:13.9
3. Dani Sordo/Marc Marti Citroen C4 +5:05.3
4. Marcus Gronholm/Timo Rautiainen Ford Focus RS +5:37.1
5. Mikko Hirvonen/Jarmo Lehtinen Ford Focus RS +7:08.1
6. Daniel Carlsson/Denis Giraudet Citroen Xsara WRC +8:13.2
7. Gigi Galli/Giovanni Bernacchni Citroen Xsara WRC +9:39.6
8. Jari-Matti Latvala/Miika Anttila Ford Focus WRC +10:44.9
9. Manfred Stohl/Ilka Minor Citroen Xsara WRC +12:46.0
10. Andreas Mikkelsen/Ola Floene Ford Focus RS04 +13:51.6

As has become somewhat usual, Sebastien Loeb has won yet another round. Gronholm and his teammate Hirvonen had originally finished 2nd and 3rd, but a technical infringement gave them each 5-minute penalties. Which was good news for Petter Solberg in his Subaru.

Solberg’s teammate, Chris Atkinson did not finish due to a marvelous wreck he had on what I believe was stage 12. A crest, in which many cars had problems with, managed to catch Atkinson and his co-driver Glenn Macneall by surprise. After the event it was revealed that Macneall will no longer be Atkinson’s co-driver due to Glenn Macneall having some personal obligations he felt he need to get back to Australia for.

The Subaru WRC 2007 still seems to be improving, and with a few tests sessions scheduled in the 1-month break until Rally Argentina, things may start to look better for the Subaru team in Argentina. Here are your standings so far…

1. S. LOEB (F) 38 Pts
2. M. GRÖNHOLM (FIN) 37 Pts
3. M. HIRVONEN (FIN) 30 Pts
4. D. SORDO (E) 19 Pts
5. P. SOLBERG (N) 16 Pts
6. H. SOLBERG (N) 11 Pts
7. C. ATKINSON (AUS) 10 Pts
8. D. CARLSSON (S) 9 Pts
9. J. LATVALA (FIN) 7 Pts
10. T. GARDEMEISTER (FIN) 5 Pts

By the way, there was never any elaboration on Tony Gardemesiter’s exclusion from the rally that I mentioned before. If and when I ever find out why Sebastien Loeb was allowed to continue in last year’s rally Acropolis, I will let you know.

(Photo taken from Eurosport.)

Gardemesiter Excluded

I just read off of Eurosport that Tony Gardemeister was excluded from the Rally Portugal because he drove his car on a road section – public roads to get to the next stage or a service stop - with only three wheels (he hit a bridge on a stage and broke off one of the four).

While I don’t want to rush to judgment on the entire situation, I am very frustrated with the judgment of the rally officials. At the Rally Acropolis (Greece) last year Sebastian Loeb drove on a road section getting to the service park with three wheels going on to actually LOSE THE ENTIRE REAR AXLE. Loeb was allowed to remain in the event and finished second in the rally. Why the different treatment? I wish Eurosport would ask someone because I certainly can’t get an answer out of the FIA.

Image of Sebastian Loeb last season before his entire axle tore off from the Citroen used from official 2006 Rally Acropolis website.

Spring Break

As a kid who never went anywhere during spring break, not once, it’s important for me to find out what I missed. And thanks to this article from the Washington Post, I’ve found out that what I missed by never “attending” a spring break was pure and simple: marketing.

And this all reminds me of one of my most favorite songs by the band Cake, “Rock ‘n’ Roll Lifestyle:

Excess ain't rebellion.
You're drinking what they're selling.
Your self-destruction doesn't hurt them.
Your chaos won't convert them.
They're so happy to rebuild it.

You'll never really kill it.

I guess I was just never that cool to have the rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle. Or, maybe I had realized at a young age that my actions would never have an economic impact to change the course of corporate America, or let alone the realization from the song by Cake that the actions that young persons perceive as “rebellious” do nothing to affect corporate America, and may as well play into the marketing they provide. I would venture to say they are merely being rebellious against their parents’ rules.

More on Angioplasty

The Washington Post’s Rob Stein writes about angioplasty and its effectiveness:

The study of more than 2,000 patients found that those who underwent the expensive procedure, known as angioplasty, in non-emergency situations were no less likely to suffer a heart attack or die than those who only took aspirin and other medicines to thin their blood and lower blood pressure and cholesterol, along with adopting life style changes.

I have written on this topic before. This article gets my hopes up in the possibility that the US can start to turn the corner on being able to bring healthcare costs lower. If we can continue to find out what procedures are not worth it under certain circumstances, then maybe doctors can continue to prescribe less costly procedures. However, as Arnold Kling has said many times before, doctors don’t always have an incentive to tell their patients to take a less costly approach. This is especially true if their patients are insistent on having a certain procedure because they simply believe in only the latest and greatest. If the procedures had more of an impact on what we pay, then maybe healthcare consumers would be more discouraged from unnecessary procedures.

Maybe, for angioplasty, if the procedure weren’t done immediately after a heart attack (after 12 hours, angioplasty is not much more affective than other less costly treatments) but much later, the patient would have to pay more. The problem with that though is that we don’t even know if it was the patient’s call, so why should we make them pay for it. As I said before, the doctor doesn’t have much incentive either way in terms of costly procedures. But all that might change so long as these studies continue to prove that costly procedures aren’t always the most effective.

Being a MySpace Musician

It’s hard to take this article very seriously. It’s about an unsigned MySpace music artist named Tila Tequila (can you tell that’s not her real name?).

I mention it because I hark back to my previous post on MySpace. This “recording artist” has 1.7 million friends, and yet her single on iTunes:

Sold 14,000 99-cent downloads in its first week -- a figure that doesn't even equal 1 percent of Tequila's MySpace friends.

Another reason why I don’t think MySpace will last for a long time unless it comes up with something new is that not much of its content is genuine. And when it is genuine, it’s mostly just gossip that does nothing for anyone. Simply put, MySpace lacks an ability to be serious overall, and the brand will require some invigoration in the future if wants to remain viable.

As for Tequila’s music career:

There are other hurdles, too, says Craig Marks, editor of Blender magazine. "Her problem is that she's just not that good. As a test case, I'm not sure she's going to measure up because I don't think she has the skill."

Strictly speaking economically, for Tila Tequila, this venture of hers has had a huge payoff. She’s signed with a prominent publicist, represented by United Artist Talent Agency, and an artist management firm. And obviously if I’m even mentioning her, then the buzz being generated for her must be working. I will disclose this though: I have yet to go to her MySpace page, or even hear a snippet of her song on iTunes.

In the end, my favorite quote from the Washington Post article was in regards as to how staff writer J. Freedom du Lac described Tequila’s single:

An abrasive, expletive-laced rap-rock revenge fantasy

Only on MySpace…

Pick Up Artists

Well, because I’ve talked about dating before, this post from Ben Casnocha is very intriguing. I dare you to not read the post. And while mentioning Ben, his blog is always worth reading.

Chiquita in Columbia

As much as I love a free-market economy, I also love and adore a judicial system and government that regulates and intervenes when necessary. For anyone who doesn’t watch The Colbert Report, this Washing Post article should help explain.

To Quote:

The Justice Department said that Chiquita's senior executives reviewed and approved the payments, even though they had the knowledge that the AUC was "a violent paramilitary organization," court documents showed. In corporate books, the company called the money security payments, doling out checks at first and then paying in cash. Even after the State Department labeled the AUC a terrorist group, Chiquita made 50 payments totaling $825,000, court documents showed.

Hedge Your Bets

Back to economics.

I think one of the biggest ways in which I’m emulating Greg Mankiw is by frequently linking to articles written by Sebastian Mallaby from the Washington Post.

In his latest Op-Ed, Mallaby shows how sub-prime lending market “bubble” is different the tech-stock bubble because the losers back then in with the tech stocks younger adventurers, whereas now…

There's no fodder for advertising laughs in the mortgage debacle. Many of the liar loans and exploding ARMs were extended to low-income families, who now can't meet their payments and face the prospect of eviction. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, one in 10 recent home buyers who are black will lose their properties, 2 1/2 times the likely rate for whites.

This is definitely a lot more serious in terms of what the consequences mean. We’re talking about people losing their homes.

However, I (nor Sebastian Mallaby for that matter) don’t mean to strike fear. And what’s why Mallaby writes that more government regulation isn’t the answer, and might make the problem a catastrophe. In my opinion, this shows that the lending banks here are at fault because they wanted to give those loans to those customers with those terms. Don’t be surprised if I can’t make the payment when my interest rate jumps after the second year. And not only that, but if you’re making that kind of loan, where’s your hedge? Even I took a class on risk management, hedging, derivatives and options securities. I know those wunderkids who took those same courses are in your firm somewhere toiling away playing solitaire. So, get them working on some new hedges, or rather, actual hedges.

I digress though because these firms probably do have hedges working, and that’s why they aren’t in the tank yet. However, their stock prices are suffering and I am trying to understand why the market thinks matters will continue in this manner for some time. I think we’ll find out soon enough when more lending firms give out earnings reports, and give statements regarding their financial and cash positions. Hopefully then, we’ll see that that they are still sound.

Australian Grand Prix Roundup

Well, when I wrote no news means “finishing in the middle of the pack,” I really didn’t know I’d be that right. Toyota made almost no news during winter testing, and during the practice sessions of the first grand prix, Toyota was being scoffed at by the commentators from Speed Channel. Nevertheless, they surprised a few people when they qualified AND finished 8th and 9th place in the grand prix.

What remains to be seen is if they can improve their performance. Toyota did improve ever so slightly last season after they started the year quite badly. Perhaps they can do the same this year. Although, I do have a sneaking suspicion that most of Toyota’s motivations comes from trying to beat Honda, which is having an almost embarrassing time of it so far this year due to the Super Aguri team using last year’s Honda chassis and outpacing the Honda factory team. Yikes.

Kimi Raikonnen won the race from pole for Ferrari, and many people think Ferrari will be un-catch-able this year. We’ll have to wait and see if the McLaren Mercedes team with defending driver’s champion Fernando Alonso will be able to match the pace. Also, while everyone discounts Fisichella and the Renault team, I do believe that they might be able to provide solid points finishes on a consistent basis and by doing so the Renault team will make things interesting towards the end of the year.

WRC Rally Mexico

I apologize for not reviewing Round 4 of the WRC championship earlier, but I have fallen ill since Wednesday night. (I had written my post on Christianity earlier in the week and just simply had to hit the publish button.)

Rally Mexico marked the return of the normalcy that was seen last season where Sebastian Loeb won, Marcos Gronholm finished second, Miko Hirvonen third, Daniel Sordo fourth, Chris Atkinson in fifth, and Petter Solberg retiring due to a freak breakdown.

The new Subaru WRC 2007 car was a fantastic improvement, but a freak oil cooler fan shroud piece broke off and cut a whole in Petter Solberg’s oil line somewhere preventing him from even finishing the first day. His teammate, Chris Atkinson, faired better finishing fifth, and may have finished better if it weren’t for a change in his car’s setup on the last day that he later regretted.

Here’s hoping for better luck with Subaru in the next rally in two weeks time in Portugal.

On My Christianity

As disclosure on my part to any and all readers, I would like write some of my own feelings on Christianity, more specifically on Creation.

As I’ve joined a new Bible study group, I feel the need to disclose the unfortunate finding - on my own - that is the widespread permeation of fundamentalist thought in what I feel should be a more personal religious travel. That is to say, fundamentalism tries to strictly control other people’s actions no matter what they believe (so much for the first amendment), and these fundamentalists and their teachings are slowly creeping their way into many churches. This fundamentalism is being brought up in one major way to me: apologetics for fundamentalism. In other words, fundamentalists (e.g. James Dobson) claim that they’re being persecuted (e.g. War on Christmas) and also try to instill pride in anyone willing to listen to them saying that they need to engage in a battle for God.

When in reality – the place I live in – Christianity is not under attack. No one is telling me not to be a Christian, or pray whenever I want, or to live my life any differently. But back to fundamentalism…

The most visible and easiest way to reveal this is through speaking about creationism. Personally, as much as I believe in what are amazing things (e.g. Jesus being the messiah), I also believe that science is bringing us closer to the true and factual answers of our origins and how God has created us. Once again, let me reiterate in case you are breezing your way through this: I believe that science is continuing to show us how we got to be where we are. Now, as Neil de Grasse Tyson will tell me, religion can become a philosophy of ignorance, but I most enjoy the effort of seeing how science proves and sheds light on my faith in God.

And while I feared for the longest time that I was alone, stuck between strict fundamentalists and scientists who would most likely scoff at my belief in deity, I have in the past, recently, and now continuously come across people of similar beliefs in allowing science to affirm and guide our faith.

Firstly, there’s Andrew Sullivan, who linked to this article where:

He [Vatican astronomer Guy Consolmagno] described creationism, whose supporters want it taught in schools alongside evolution, as a "kind of paganism" because it harked back to the days of "nature gods" who were responsible for natural events.

So, the Catholic Church also seems to be on board with evolution. Even Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury said:

[for] most of the history of Christianity there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God, is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time.

Personally, I’ve still struggled to speak up for what I believe is the proper search for our own history and who God truly is, rather than accepting the fallacy of man’s descriptions for deity, which by definition should be beyond our comprehension. But man’s history, earth’s history, the universe’s history, these are areas we can fully explore and discover to shed light on ourselves. However, I have fear to bring out this conversation because I’m afraid to lose an argument. But I soon found this excerpt from Stephen Jay Gould when he spoke at Caltech in 1985 (from Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things, Owl Books, 2002. Paperback ed, p. 153)

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party.

Andrew Sullivan, whom I believe has more guts than I do, is still writing in a dialogue with Sam Harris about faith (or as Sam would put it, our error in having faith). In this latest piece, Andrew touches on the topic of creation again.

Also, while I know he’s a humorist, Scott Adams describes in this blog post some of the feelings I have on the science. I have doubts all the time, even in the science, but I’ll continue to read the latest research as I too look for answers to my questions.

The Demand Function

As an economist, I must beg Kevin Tressler pardon, for I am about to call him a moron. He is in fact a moron economically speaking, or a terrible reader I might gather.

As an amateur mass communication scholar and someone who studied under Scott Caplan, I have to disagree with the assertion that MySpace is on the decline for one primary reason that I know Mikey K will appreciate: economics. MySpace currently boasts 84 million registered users, and in 2007, collects another 2 million users per week (that's about the size of the population of Houston, TX.) In accounting for repeat log-ins and visits, the site registers 48 million unique visitors per month. Here's the home run, though. More than 70% of MySpace users fall in the coveted 18-24 demographic, making MySpace an advertisers wet dream. Free access to the golden demographic - yeah, I'm willing to bet MySpace is secure for a long time.

Let us start with the article that Sullivan mentions. What we’re talking about in economics here is demand. The demand function, Tressler blithely tries to tackle with statistics that leave even more questions. He wrote, “Currently boasts 84 million registered users.” Of which how many come back? Of which how many are still active? Okay, he tries to counter that argument as he knows it will come up with, “In accounting for repeat log-ins and visits, the site registers 48 million unique visitors per month.”

Here’s a pose as to why there are so many users. What about substitution? For a musician to construct a functional website that allows people to download and look at their music and work that costs money and/or time. So, there’s a whole bunch of your users right there.

But that’s not even the point of the article. The article is about the future of MySpace. So, what happens when – as Michael Hirschorn says:

But what's remarkable soon becomes ordinary. MySpace remains cool — thanks to surprisingly deft stewardship by its new owner, News Corp. — but nothing is cool forever. And once the tantalizing pull of millions of people you could possibly be best friends with wears off, you're left with some by now pretty ordinary functionality: blogging; instant messaging; photo, video, and audio uploads; networking tools. Thanks to the inexorable process of Web innovation, such stuff goes from 'OMG' to 'Whatever' in no time flat.

So, Kevin is right, it’s economics. But Kevin obviously either sucks at economics or doesn’t bother to read entire articles because he doesn’t understand that the question is about what is going to happen to the demand function, and what will MySpace add that will allow their product to re-enter the product cycle. For those who don’t know, MySpace is in the end of the realization stage.

The Demand Function will change because people won’t think MySpace is cool anymore. Users won’t think it’s cool anymore because the functionality of MySpace will be surpassed by something else. Again, this question and reasoning of the article was regarding MySpace’s future, not it’s present. So, why is he "willing to bet MySpace is secure for a long time"? Does Kevin think the internet innovation is over?

Normally I would not create such a tirade, but I refuse to allow anyone to sully economics for the application of some silly contrarian argument.

More on Social Networking

Via Andrew Sullivan. The demise of My Space might soon be upon us. I can't wait.

Al Gore's Electric Bill

After a conservative friend of mine lambasted Al Gore for his very high electric bill, I felt I needed to look into that matter further. As with my previous post, I think it’s important to understand what Arnold Kling was saying in his article at TCS Daily. So, here is my opinion.

Due to recent revelation of Al Gore’s electric bill, many conservatives (new and old, theo-con and neo-con) are now or continuing to decry Gore as a hypocrite. I offer a different take. What I believe is that Mr. Gore’s fault doesn’t lie in political maneuvering, but rather his unfortunately false belief that buying carbon permits is the same as conservation. Once again, this is touched on by Arnold Kling:

If you are not really all that worried about carbon emissions, but you get pleasure from making empty, self-righteous gestures, then do what Al Gore does -- buy carbon offsets.

Once again, I don’t believe that Al Gore is acting in terms of political maneuvering; I merely think his logic is flawed in terms of how he should help the environment. But if you still feel the need to lambaste Al Gore on his purchasing of carbon offsets, then maybe we should sit down and have a talk about farm and sugar subsidies.

On Social Networking Sites

In this article from The Washington Post, we find that social networking sites have a problem in dealing with libel.

About one-third of the searches yielded content used to deny a job, the survey said. The legal hiring market is very competitive. What could tip the balance is the appearance that a candidate is a lightning rod for controversy, said Mark Rasch, a Washington lawyer and consultant who specializes in Internet issues.

If I understand that above quote properly, I feel the need to ask why people still love Ann Coulter. Wouldn’t her countless bouts of controversy all but eliminate her standing as a legal expert? I guess this is why she is a professional pundit. But, I still digress; I would not find it unimaginable if at some time in the future, a Republican candidate or congressperson would seek her legal counsel on something.

So, this is my conclusion: controversy is bad for a new hire. But, if you’re a pundit and controversy makes money for your or your publisher, then well, say whatever you want. However, another caveat… The person who was damaged in the Washington Post story had things written about her; it’s not like the firms who didn’t hire her weren’t happy with something that she wrote. Yet another example of why I continue to be wary of social networking sites in how they’re used, who uses them, and how they’re treated as truth machines (For example, Wikipedia).

Loeb Wins in Mexico

Sebastian Loeb won the fourth round of the 2007 WRC season in Mexico this past weekend. I’ve recorded the coverage from satellite/Eurosport, and I’ll provide a review on Thursday. Before Petter Solberg retired, he was leading, and I’ll give my own impressions on the Subaru Impreza WRC2007 on Thursday as well.

Oh, and by the way, while I was watching this past weekend’s Speed Report this morning, Bob Varsha had a segment on the upcoming Formula 1 season. It was quite decent, but finally ended with what I will paraphrase as: as much as I’ve talked about testing, we’ll have to find out how fast each team is in Australia. Oh, and as is the usual now, Toyota received only about 10 seconds of coverage. In the off-season, they have had no real stories. As a fan of theirs, I’ll have to admit that I’m hoping for a “no news is good news” scenario, which in racing usually means you’ll finish middle of the pack.

On tomorrow or Wednesday, I’ll provide my own comment on the hypocrisy of politicians and the sheer anger that seems to be coming from the right wing over Al Gore’s electric bill.

Carbon Tax v. Carbon Trading Permits

Once again, Arnold Kling provides some insight to an issue that I think deserves some thought. He lays out the differences between putting out a carbon tax, carbon offsets, and purchases of carbon permits.

My favorite takeaway from the article is when Arnold writes:

It may be true, as Greg Mankiw argues in his Pigou Club Manifesto, that higher taxes on bad energy are justified. Figuring out the optimum tax is a difficult challenge, even for the Pigou Club. However, once the correct tax is set, that by itself provides all the incentive that is needed to get people to switch to good energy. The tax on bad energy will raise the price that people are willing to pay for good energy. That higher price for good energy is all of the incentive that producers need to undertake the effort to provide more good energy.

At then end of Arnold’s article, I thought to myself how ironic it was that if I were to buy a carbon offset, I would not be committing an economically efficient act. Why, because I had already used the “bad energy.” While my carbon offset would subsidize good energy, it wouldn’t really discourage use in bad energy for anyone else, which is why a broad tax for everyone would be more efficient.

F1 and WRC Preview

Andrew Sullivan’s face of the day for March 1, 2007 was Ralf Schumacher in the Toyota paddock during testing at Bahrain.

Sullivan’s post reminded me that I hadn’t commented on racing events for quite some time now. Of course, there was the off season, but as well, while testing has begun in Formula 1, there’s not much to comment on because each team is testing differently. I will say this though; the teams no one is talking about are Spyker and Toyota. And as much as I love Toyota, I believe the F1 media aren’t mentioning them because Toyota isn’t doing much of anything to note. But I’ll still be rooting for them.

In WRC news, I’ve been way behind. Subaru has actually managed to score drivers and manufacturers points so far after three rounds this season. Chris Atkinson is the #2 driver for SWRT and is in his final year of contract for Subaru. While I do believe Atkinson’s come a long way and consistently shows potential, it’s obvious that Subaru will be looking at this season as an evaluation of his merit. Personally, I’ll be pulling for him along with the Subaru world Rally Team.

With that said, after three rounds Subaru lies third in the manufacturer’s standings. I look forward to Rally Mexico when Subaru finally has a chance to out its 2007 WRC car. I know they and their fans are hoping for significant improvements over the 2006 spec car. It will definitely take a win though for Petter Solberg to get back in the driver’s championship.

By the way, Daniel Carlsson tied in 7th place in points is racing in a two year old Mitsubishi Lancer WRC. Mitsubishi is not going with a full factory outfit this season, but merely providing what I would like to call moral support to a privateer team.

For any NHRA fans, check out Kevin Tressler’s blog. For those wanting information on NASCAR, just turn on the television or a newspaper, you can’t miss it.

Plug for Bryan Caplan's Book

Even though Caplan’s book hasn’t been released yet, I was reminded of its impending release when one of Andrew Sullivan’s readers wrote this:

Someone like Kos or Josh Marshall will never, ever get this about us – we (Republicans) are an extremely pragmatic group of people who like to win and aren't willing to lose just because liberal bloggers and the Media say we should lose.

I’m not arguing with any points that Sullivan’s reader makes, but the tone of Sullivan’s reader reminded me about what Bryan Caplan wrote in an essay a few months back:

My view is that these are symptoms not of ignorance, but of irrationality. In politics as in religion, some beliefs are more emotionally appealing than others. For example, it feels a lot better to blame sneaky foreigners for our economic problems than it does to blame ourselves. This creates a temptation to relax normal intellectual standards and insulate cherished beliefs from criticism — in short, to be irrational.

A “pragmatic group of people who like to win…” It would be pretty hard to argue against that statement’s rationale.

On Stephen Kirchner

For anyone who may not be aware, Stephen Kirchner has been a vocal critic of Nouriel Roubini for quite some time.

(As an aside, what has really made me a fan of reading Kirchner’s blog is the fact that I’ve never heard his foreign policy views; so I neither know if he’s pro-Iraq War or not. As much as I’ve agreed with Larry Kudlow and Hugh Hewitt on a few economic issues, I fear their other policy goals as I would the plague.)

But what I do know and love about Kirchner is his total lack of fear in confronting Roubini on what Larry Kudlow would call Roubini's “perma-bear” status. As Kirchner himself documents, Roubini wrongly predicts the demise of the U.S.’ markets on a surprisingly consistent basis.

If you want to see someone who is unabashed in commenting on financial economics, then look no further then Stephen Kirchner.

Globalization

Sebastian Mallaby writes in the Washington Post today about how the Democrats current platform towards Globalization might create more economic woes than it would actually protect the U.S. economy.

Mallaby illustrates that globalization today is not the same as it was twenty years ago. Whereas, in the 80s, an entire industry might be at risk, in today’s age only specific tasks (or specific jobs) are at risk.

An excerpt:

But the new competition in tasks rather than industries renders the tragedy of the company town increasingly rare. If a data-entry clerk loses her job in Omaha, she can probably find other work without having to move.

Cheap labor means cheaper goods, and while we may fear the short term, in the long run, free trade will make everyone better off.

Stock Option Backdating

I had posted before on stock option backdating, and we have yet another executive who is being found guilty on backdating stock options.

As Pat Milton (AP) reports:

McKelvey became just another casualty in the widening scandal over the accounting of past options grants. At least 135 U.S. companies have disclosed internal inquiries or government investigations, and at least 39 executives and board directors at 19 companies have been fired or have resigned.

I remember in my previous post on the topic saying that Sarbanes-Oxley curtailed some of the practice. That is to say, I think it happens less frequently, as did the paper I mentioned surmise. I still have to gawk at the number though, and realize that the amount of money to be made by backdating has to be too good to pass up.

Milli Vanilli

In case you didn’t know already, we may be seeing a movie sometime in the future about Milli Vanilli.

Work and Leisure Time

In this latest paper from Valerie Ramey and Neville Francis, they provide a different paradigm in terms of how we think about work and leisure. It’s nothing mind blowing, but what it does say in the end is that when re-measured, the U.S. – since 1900 – hasn’t gained a substantial amount of leisure time compared to the amount of time that we work.

In defending the new conclusion they write,

Finally, while we think our series give good estimates of long-run trends in time use, we are much less confident about the cyclicality of time use.

...

The estimates we have produced are probably correct on the directions of movements over the business cycle, but are very imprecise estimates of the quantitative movements.

Something to think about, but I can’t think about it for too long because I have to get my work done.

More Dating Market Specialization

From Stephen Dubner at the Freakonomics blog; even farmers have their own dating market.

More on China

Because I’m still thinking about China, here’s another link to a summation that the Nightly Business Report wrote on this formal complaint the U.S. is making to the World Trade Organization. From the USTR release:

“We recognize that China has taken significant steps to open its market and reform its trade practices since becoming a Member of the WTO, and both countries are benefiting from a deeper and stronger trade relationship,” Ambassador Schwab added. “However, where China has failed to meet its commitments, we will use the full array of tools available to secure compliance. Our decision to bring this case to the WTO comes after our efforts at dialogue failed.”

Before I go on, the wording and feel of Schwab’s statement is reminiscent of a collection agency sending a letter requesting for an account to be paid in full. However, while a funny observation, it’s irrelevant, so I’ll move on.

What this press release shows is that China really does have a problem, which is that they use subsidies that effectively lower what the price would otherwise be on the market. Something that I before said was “no-no.”

China’s usage of subsidies is the deal breaker in my opinion, but the problem is that the US also has subsidies of its own that many economists don’t approve of either. And if I were China, I would surely use that excuse when the World Trade Organization comes knocking on my door.

Response to eHarmony Comment

My last post left me with this comment from the eHarmony blog that linked me to this post on the eHarmony blog.

First, let me just address how the comment was written:

1 in 500? Check your figures again. :)

Firstly, it’s not my figure. In addition, the tone of that comment makes me believe that they’ve set up a Google search for anyone who links to the Scientific American article and then automatically post that comment. I’m simply speculating on how and why eHarmony would post a comment on my blog because my blog is simply not trafficked.

Fine, I’ll let the eHarmony blog take away the statistic, but before I do, let me just say a few more things. Another reason why I think they have a Google alert or a bot set up in searching for the comment is because it doesn’t even seem that they read my entire post because the statistic, while I thought important, was not really the point in my writing the post. My post was about how online dating is not the complete savior it’s cracked up to be. It still has its own drawbacks, which the eHarmony comment obviously did not address.

Also, while were on statistical analysis, don’t get me started on how different entities can use statistics differently to come up with findings for different points of view. Let us all just take a look at climate science. Robert Samuelsson touches on it here, Arnold Kling here, and Robert C. Balling Jr. here. So, let those links show that trying to argue on statistics won’t get us very far anyway in terms of climate, and I would venture the same goes for dating thanks to the Scientific American article.

Once again, it’s clear that the gist of my post was also simply inarguable because it was pretty much a wholly personal opinion on the Scientific American article, except for the statistic that eHarmony blog contests. They don’t contest any of the other research that I’ve posted on my blog here, here, and here.

Moreover, is there a retraction from Scientific American?

Why doesn’t the eHarmony blog address some of the drawbacks that Robert Epstein mentions? To generalize it: the lying, of which my favorite example that Epstein cites is where one woman uses pictures of women who are obviously not her.

You’ve got my attention eHarmony blog, and because you say the statistic is invalid, leave me another comment and show me the retraction from Scientific American.

More on Online Dating

My good friend, Matt Huggins, emailed me this article by Robert Epstein from Scientific American.com that discusses online dating.

Epstein touches on some ideas that I’ve mentioned before. Once again proving that money matters in dating showing that income can make up for a lack of other attractive characteristics.

What Epstein writes really articulates though are the pros and cons of online dating, and while he tries to surmise that online dating could have a wonderful future ahead of it, I personally cannot get over the glaring drawbacks that are attached to the venture of online dating.

According to Epstein, the good news is that online dating is continuing to grow and in some ways getting better. Unfortunately, participants still have to deal with the lying of age, weight, and sometimes, flat-out lying about your own picture. Those are tough things to stomach for me, let alone the staggering odds that I might find a mate online.

In 2005, using eHarmony's own published statistics, a team of credible authorities--among them Philip Zimbardo, a former president of the American Psychological Association--concluded in an online white paper: "When eHarmony recommends someone as a compatible match, there is a 1 in 500 chance that you'll marry this person.... Given that eHarmony delivers about 1.5 matches a month, if you went on a date with all of them, it would take 346 dates and 19 years to reach [a] 50% chance of getting married." The team also made the sweeping observation that "there is no evidence that ... scientific psychology is able to pair individuals who will enjoy happy, lasting marriages."

Also, Epstein goes on to mention that we still face a “false negative problem” where the matching from a dating service takes away people you might never meet, but “who would adore each other.”

I think for myself to make a current judgment on the reading material for online dating, I would have to say that it’s simply just another market, a dating market. And just like the real life dating market, online dating deals with its own pitfalls. Deception, people (or computers) setting you up with whom they think is a good match, and the sheer effort and will it takes to put yourself out there and figure it out are all items that can make it difficult. In the end, the common sense logic is right, online dating is still dating; we’ve just changed the initial communication medium.

****Update: I respond to the comment left by the eHarmony blog.

Worth a Thousand Words

I had recently made a new friend who reminded me of my college days when I enjoyed a few of the art exhibits at the University of Delaware (Paul R. Jones is a major contributor there).

Today’s picture of the day at Wikipedia is a famous photograph taken by Gordon Parks of a government cleaning woman. I’m still always amazed at how a picture can speak a thousand words.

(picture via Wikipedia from Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division, Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Photograph Collection. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/fsa.8b14845)

Farm Subsidies

When President Bush in his State of the Union speech declared that, “We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol,” I wondered how much he was thinking about investing because earlier in the month President Bush declared on reducing the budget deficit in the next five years.

Well, ironically enough, according to Reuters (via The Washington Post) the U.S. will be cutting back on farm subsidies – except for ones that could produce ethanol. Personally I've always disliked any and all farm subsidies. With this news though of the President’s subsidy cuts not really cutting, but probably shifting funds more towards the production of ethanol, I think it’s time I started investing in my friend’s corn fields…now.

The Trade Deficit

This article from The Washington Post states what many lawmakers in Washington, as well as Henry Paulson (U.S. Treasury Secretary), have been saying for quite some time: that the U.S. trade deficit with China is too large.

I think it is important to provide some context by showing you what one of my favorite economists thinks of this.

Firstly here, Greg states the possibility that some people could be overreacting.

Although this textbook problem is useful as a theoretical exercise, one should not overstate its practical relevance (as I believe Paul mistakenly did in his paper). In the example, the United States is made worse off by growth in China because our trade with China dries up, so we lose the gains from trade. This theoretical result has minimal application to the world as we see it today. World trade is booming, not shrinking.

And via Greg Mankiw, Michael Spence writes in this Wall Street Journal article:

…if China does allow its currency to revalue over time, then we will simply run a deficit with another collection of countries, and from a domestic point of view, nothing much will have changed.

I’m tempted to let China “hold our debt” as the lawmakers say. Why, because the trade deficit signifies continued U.S. economic expansion. This expansion is what continues to let people buy goods that may not come from the US. The real counter to the argument is on if China is purposefully manipulating its currency (keeping it cheap) to sell more goods, which lawmakers argue is an economic no-no.

Dating Market Specialization

Just in case you were thinking that the dating market didn't have enough characteristics with other more formal markets, here is (from The Washington Post) something for you in case you didn't already know.

The quote that got me was:

Other dating sites, he says, are just not for him: They're geared to "people who are more normal."

Specialized markets...they exist everywhere.

By the way, to readers who are keeping tabs with me: No, I have yet to succumb to joining an online dating service. Although, don't let me make you think that it's easy out in the "dating market." It can still be very rewarding (new people to meet) and disappointing (sometimes things have to end or never end up going anywhere).

The Onion's Dating Levity

With all the dating talk that I’ve done in the past on my blog, I think this Onion article brings some wonderful levity to it all.

My favorite part:

Although Klein said he was "never a big believer in love at first sight" before, he claimed to be "instantly drawn" to the way Ridenour sat within 10 feet of him and looked in his general direction. A short conversation revealed the two were single, lived in the same town, and had both considered short-term kidnapping schemes in order to avoid spending another Christmas alone.

For her part, Ridenour says it didn't take long to realize Klein was the most caring, funny, and sensitive man who had ever spoken to her for more than 30 minutes without trying to get her to switch long-distance carriers.

And someday, I know I’ll be just as lucky.

Bush's Health Insurance Proposal

John Irons over at the Budget Blog at the Center for American Progress lays out some views on President Bush’s latest proposal to provide tax deductions on those who purchase healthcare outside of work.

Greg Mankiw weighs in here and provides an upbeat look on the proposal:

Economists have long suggested that tax subsidies lead to excessive use of employer-provided health insurance. This proposal would help fix that problem, while giving a helping hand to the uninsured.

John Irons dislikes the proposal because…

What ails the nation’s health care system cannot be cured by a simple tax change. For a variety of proposals on how to reduce costs and cover the uninsured, see CAP’s health care work.

Obviously John and Greg are two very intelligent economists, and I agree with the both of them, and it’s these kinds of informed men who should be engaging in the political debate. As for myself, while I may not agree with Arnold Kling on everything, I agree with this statement from him:

The number two policy problem is that American's extravagant use of medical procedures with high costs and low benefits is paid for in part by government subsidies. Remove the subsidies, and I don't care how Americans handle their health care, just as I don't care how they buy cars.

My stance: I also don’t like the subsidies because those too provide inefficiency in the healthcare system. Unfortunately, I also agree that a real problem in health insurance is for people who can’t afford health insurance at all. Yet, maybe there’s a way we could provide a “floor” for coverage that does not exclude larger ailments, but rather, helping protect against those large ailments (e.g. cancer) is the main reason why the insurance would exist. The “floor” would act almost like liability insurance for vehicles, which may not be the best coverage, but still provides insurance in accidents and large catastrophes. Arnold Kling is a proponent of this idea, and while I’m still not sold completely on it, I believe it is part of the best way forward.

If I could, I would vote for the proposal if President Bush changed it in the way this Washington Post Op-ed suggests:

Rather than embracing tax deductions, which are most valuable to people in high tax brackets, Mr. Bush could have made his proposal even more progressive by recommending a refundable tax credit that would be worth the same to everyone.

Maybe President Bush will change it. I certainly hope he does.

Arnold Kling Discusses Tax Breaks

Arnold Kling discusses his case against tax breaks. It’s this kind of thought that shows how an economist(s) usually thinks beyond any partisan line. Robert Samuelsson did so earlier in the week.

Now, Kling:

We really should get rid of tax deductions. Any social policy that you want to do can be done with subsidies. Even the charitable deduction could be re-cast as a matching grant from the government.

It’s important to remember that economists don’t think equality is a bad thing. What’s most concerning for an economist is the priority for everyone to participate in a market and that most importantly, the government doesn’t favor anyone. In fact, it’s pretty obvious that’s why Republicans usually have (or had) an economist's vote. But, as we’ve seen in recent years, Republicans can be just as bad at government spending (and prone to spend) as Democrats.

Dating Tactics

According to this latest tidbit of news, the opposite sex will find you more attractive if the people around you are smiling. If only I were a comedian.

The Minimum Wage

Robert Samuelsson opines on the minimum wage and the futile effort that it is to provide true socio-economic change.

I agree completely, and his further suggestion of a gas tax qualifies him for the Pigou Club.

Quoting Samuelsson:

Among social scientists, it's no secret that the minimum wage is a weak weapon against poverty. Modest numbers of workers are affected; many are teenagers, often from middle-class homes; and many of the poor don't work. And a higher minimum wage may destroy some jobs. No matter. Democrats plunged ahead because raising the minimum wage is symbolically powerful. It says that you care about "economic justice."

More on the Cape Gazette

Well, it seems as if my previous post wasn’t enough in order to discuss how media bias operates and how it manufactures consent. This is a perfect linguistics exercise that Noam Chomsky has gone over and over again.

Concerning a small local body of water, The Cape Gazette is undoubtedly the only media outlet with the narrative on what is occurring. Also, their paper seems to be developing an omniscient tone. When I’ve asked my friends in a nearby town, they exclaim, “Tell me a time when that river wasn’t polluted.”

Lucky CEOs

In this latest paper from Lucian Bebchuk, Yaniv Grinstein, and Urs Peyer, “Lucky CEOs” who do well with their stock grants apparently don’t have luck to thank for much of their monetary.

Rather, Bebchuk, Grinstein, and Peyer find that…

about 1150 lucky grants (roughly half of all lucky grants in our sample) owe their status to opportunistic timing rather than mere luck. This opportunistic timing was spread over a significant number of CEOs and firms. We estimate that about 850 CEOs (about 10% of all CEOs) and about 720 firms (about 12% of all firms) received or provided manipulated lucky grants. In addition, about 550 additional grants at the second lowest or third-lowest price of the month owe their status to manipulation.

At its core, this is a corporate governance issue. For example, tenure of the CEO matters as a characteristic correlated with lucky grants. As well, the level of independence on the board mattered as well.

Also, while Sarbanes-Oxley did not eliminate the occurrences of stock manipulation, the act did curtail its frequency.

More on Bill Kristol

In case you thought it was just Glenn Greenwald. Here's Andrew Sullivan on Bill Kristol.

On Bill Kristol

A close conservative friend of mine felt bad for Bill Kristol when he recently appeared on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I, on the other hand, did not feel bad at all.

Anonymous Liberal states why.

For those who don’t feel like reading the entire post over on Glenn Greenwald’s blog, essentially Anonymous Liberal cites time after time when Bill Kristol has come up with bad prediction after bad prediction in Iraq.

The Laffer Curve

This article is for my friend Will. Will and I were discussing the Laffer curve, and what it means to have such a high tax rate imposed upon you that it becomes very tempting and worthwhile to do what you can to evade taxes.

The article concerns Bjorn Ulvaeus from the Swedish pop group ABBA:

It's the second incident of alleged unpaid taxes for Ulvaeus, who last year was pursued for $13 million dollars to the STA to pay tax on contracts signed in Sweden prior to his move to the UK in 1984.

Anti Global Warming Research Funded by Oil Companies

This article (brought to my attention by Kevin) has to be one of, if not, the most unsurprising items I have read in some time. The headline, “Report: Oil firm funded discrediting of science” is really almost just too sensational. We’re inching our way closer to the Wal-Mart is the death of society plot to almost nauseating level.

But I’m only making the Wal-Mart comparison to show you how sensationalist the headline is. As I said, it should be no surprise that oil companies fund researchers or research groups who favor their views. Remember that tobacco companies actually ended up creating their own research group at one point.

Remember also that there’s money on both sides of the aisle. I can only imagine that corn production has been having a good time with the production of more ethanol in the past few years. Even movies like The Distinguished Gentleman have pointed out that lobbyists contribute from both sides of any issue.

So, for there to be research monetarily supported by oil companies that supports their side of the argument, I am not surprised, and neither should you be.

Setting a Sheep Straight

How ironic would it be if the Christianist Right decided to use the genetic tampering that they’ve opposed to weed out homosexuality?

This article explains the possibility of the process:

By studying the brains of the homosexual rams, scientists pinpointed the mechanisms influencing their sexual orientation.

They gave the sheep injections to adjust the levels of hormones in their brains and some of the previously gay rams became attracted to ewes.

If I were to guess a possible argument from the Right, it might come out as something like:

“If treating depression with drugs is possible because it’s from a chemical balance, then why can’t we say that homosexuality is also a form of a chemical imbalance?”

I really hope I didn’t give them any ideas.

Open Season

Since I love the topic of blogging and many outlets of online media, I thought this article was pertinent to the discussion. Like George Will had written earlier (and I discussed), the content that people can put out there is not restricted by quality at all. And many times, those who create the content don’t realize what they’re actually writing.

This quote explains the public’s possible realization of what’s going on:

"I do think it's an invasion of privacy," says Melissa Bush, a business major at the University of Dayton. "But when you think about it, anything you post online is open season."

When she interviewed for an internship last summer, her interviewer told her upfront that they'd be checking her Facebook profile. She didn't worry because she's careful about what she posts -- but lately, she's been deleting messages from friends that she deems inappropriate.

"If you don't want people to read it, don't post it," Bush says. "If you don't want people to see a video, don't post it.

Obviously, when you post in the public domain it’s open season for anyone to reply or critique. Unfortunately, only now are many people realizing this.