One of the light bulbs burned out on the car the other day. Not a big deal. After work, I stopped by the auto parts store to get a replacement. I was confronted by an assortment of bulbs, all the right size. The question was: How bright did I want to go?
For a mere $22, I could get a pair of OEM replacement bulbs. For just $3 more, I could get a pair that promised up to 30% brighter. $15 more than that, and I could have 45%. And for another $10 above that, I could give my vehicle up to 50% more light than it previously had.
Being frugal, and pretty happy with the lights on the vehicle, I opted to get the first step up set, and hurried home.
While I was replacing the bulbs, my curiosity kicked in. How do they make the bulbs brighter? I read the back of the carton, just to see if there were any clues.
Where they higher wattage? Nope. Same 55/60 watts as the original. Different style? Nope. Halogen. Different shape? Not that I could discern. Different emitted wavelength? Ah, yes. The new ones emit light equivalent to 3200K, compared to the originals at 3100K. A higher Kelvin rating on a bulb will indicate a whiter (but not necessarily brighter) light. Whiter light may allow us to see more clearly, but that is just perceived brightness, not actual brightness, as measured by the lumen output.
And then I read the very, very fine print. It indicated that halogen bulbs dim over time, that towards the end of its life, a bulb could emit as much as 20% less light than when new. Replacing your old, worn out bulbs with these new ones will give you 30% more brightness when compared with the old bulb!
Well, sure! And the direct replacement will give you 25% more light than an old one.
But that's not the comparison we expect (or at least, that I expected). I figured that a bulb that was 30% brighter was a comparison of new to new - if you multiply 30% by 80%, it turns out that the new, brighter bulb I purchased emits only 4% more light when new than the OEM bulb would emit when new.
Is the advertising false? Well, not directly; They do print the actual comparison, it is factually true. But is it deceptive? Absolutely. Would I have sprung the extra dollars for a bulb that was measured to be only 4% brighter? Probably not.
Am I angry? No, not really. I'm more amused than anything. Amused that I would fall for something so deceptive. Amused that this activity (purposefully deceptive advertising) is so widespread and accepted in our society. Amused that my desire for safety could be so easily manipulated into worthless spending.
And, quite honestly, surprised that we put up with it.
Caveat Emptor!
(That 50% brighter bulb? Turns out that it's only a 20% improvement over new...)
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
On Voting Tests
An individual was expounded on the idea that there should be some test before being allowed to vote. Perhaps something as simple as the ability to read should be required, so that people who are making the decisions about who would lead us at least have indicated some base intelligence, and wouldn't be too likely to support a candidate just because the candidate was a proficient speaker.
As with many heinous ideas, it sounds plausible on the surface. We don't want the truly ignorant making decisions that effect all of us, do we?
But, the idea of imposing a test deeply bothers me, on at least three counts.
First, it is antithetical to the idea of democracy. True, in America, we are a representational democracy, and many hide behind this fact as cover for advancing elitist and exclusive ideas – ideas aimed more at keeping in power those with whom they agree rather than allowing for a pluralism of thought (and action.) It reveals the inability of those who expound such ideas to grasp that their experience and their decisions are not universally right or universally accepted: That other citizens, with other experiences, can, and do, reach rational but different conclusions.
Second, there is the difficulty in determining which test to impose. It is hardly a trivial problem to attempt to solve. Want people who are not likely to be hoodwinked? How, exactly, do you test for that? Early constraints, like requiring land ownership (and maleness) surely did nothing to indicate a lack of gullibility. Individual experience and specific situations certainly play a much larger role in avoiding gullibility, plus any test would be lengthy and still likely prone to error. (Just witness the inability for SAT scores to predict success in college to gain an understanding.)
Finally, and I think most importantly, the idea of excluding individuals from participating in society violates and undermines one of our most important goals: Building an equitable and just society. For far too much of human history, ruling classes have taken advantage of, and treated differently those ruled. Of course, when the tables turned, and the former slaves became the masters, they continued their master's ways, and the cycle continues.
However, the structure of a fully inclusive democratic society is different. It attempts to break with this cycle, and build durable, just institutions that can withstand changes in society's composition, changes in the ruling class, and absorb and advance changes in the understanding of justice. We don't want to build a society that just protects us when we are the ruling class: We want a society that will continue to protect us fairly if/when we become a minority. We want to embody John Rawl's ideas of Justice as Fairness (as set forth in his book 'A Theory of Justice'). We want to place ourselves behind a veil, and build a society and institutions whose very structure would be fair, and we would not protest no matter which position in society we find ourselves (majority, minority, ruling class, middle class, etc.)
Imposing a test would violate this principle. What if someday, we or our descendants no longer get to determine the test, and it is redesigned to exclude us or them? What a horrible legacy to leave. Far better to support full inclusion today, to support and strengthen a society built on justice for all citizens.
For only in doing so do we have a chance to break with human tradition, and forge a new path towards a fairer, and ultimately freer, tradition.
As with many heinous ideas, it sounds plausible on the surface. We don't want the truly ignorant making decisions that effect all of us, do we?
But, the idea of imposing a test deeply bothers me, on at least three counts.
First, it is antithetical to the idea of democracy. True, in America, we are a representational democracy, and many hide behind this fact as cover for advancing elitist and exclusive ideas – ideas aimed more at keeping in power those with whom they agree rather than allowing for a pluralism of thought (and action.) It reveals the inability of those who expound such ideas to grasp that their experience and their decisions are not universally right or universally accepted: That other citizens, with other experiences, can, and do, reach rational but different conclusions.
Second, there is the difficulty in determining which test to impose. It is hardly a trivial problem to attempt to solve. Want people who are not likely to be hoodwinked? How, exactly, do you test for that? Early constraints, like requiring land ownership (and maleness) surely did nothing to indicate a lack of gullibility. Individual experience and specific situations certainly play a much larger role in avoiding gullibility, plus any test would be lengthy and still likely prone to error. (Just witness the inability for SAT scores to predict success in college to gain an understanding.)
Finally, and I think most importantly, the idea of excluding individuals from participating in society violates and undermines one of our most important goals: Building an equitable and just society. For far too much of human history, ruling classes have taken advantage of, and treated differently those ruled. Of course, when the tables turned, and the former slaves became the masters, they continued their master's ways, and the cycle continues.
However, the structure of a fully inclusive democratic society is different. It attempts to break with this cycle, and build durable, just institutions that can withstand changes in society's composition, changes in the ruling class, and absorb and advance changes in the understanding of justice. We don't want to build a society that just protects us when we are the ruling class: We want a society that will continue to protect us fairly if/when we become a minority. We want to embody John Rawl's ideas of Justice as Fairness (as set forth in his book 'A Theory of Justice'). We want to place ourselves behind a veil, and build a society and institutions whose very structure would be fair, and we would not protest no matter which position in society we find ourselves (majority, minority, ruling class, middle class, etc.)
Imposing a test would violate this principle. What if someday, we or our descendants no longer get to determine the test, and it is redesigned to exclude us or them? What a horrible legacy to leave. Far better to support full inclusion today, to support and strengthen a society built on justice for all citizens.
For only in doing so do we have a chance to break with human tradition, and forge a new path towards a fairer, and ultimately freer, tradition.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A Nation's Counterfeiters
"These actions furthered blurred the lines between banking and counterfeiting.”
So iterates Stephen Mihm's “A Nation of Counterfeiters” - a book that traces the history of counterfeiting in America. But, although the book traces the lives and livelihoods of many of our nation's foremost counterfeiters, it is about much more than just counterfeiting. It is about money as a product.
Through its pages, we read about not only the problems of counterfeit notes, but counterfeit banks (dubbed wildcat banks.) For it was not uncommon in antebellum America for a group of men (and it was men, women were not yet allowed) to obtain a state charter for a bank, set up the vaults and the printers, take their deposits, print and circulate their currency, make loans, take profits (which they quickly exchanged for the currency of a well-known reputable bank), and then shutter their doors, insolvent. This left ostensibly 'real' tender in circulation that had often less value than a well-executed counterfeit note on a good bank.
Bankers have been earning our ire for 200 years.
We're caught in a double-bind. We need money, and for the money supply to correlate with the demand for goods and services and the productive capability we have to fulfill those goods and services. Although we now have a central printer of actual money, the printing presses of the Federal Reserve are not the only way 'money' as we know it comes into existence.
When a bank takes its deposits, say $10 million, it doesn't lend just $9 million back, but perhaps $90 million – thus creating $80 million dollars. That created money serves a purpose: It is the grease that enables a modern economy to run and expand.
But the unevenness of the money supply vis a vis demand and productive capability is a major factor in creating recessions and depressions – periods of adjustment to re-align production, consumption, and restore faith in the economy and the currency.
It would be fine, I suppose, if after a glut of money, it was bankers and other employees of finance who found themselves looking for new lines of work as their sector contracted. But, as we all know, it is predominantly non-finance people who lose their work as a result of too much money.
We need to acknowledge that losing one's job due to a severe contraction in the economy is not the same as losing one's job due to a lack of diligence or laziness. We should concentrate our ire on those most responsible – those who unreasonably profited while creating more money than the economy could absorb.
So, we have a right to be angry at these modern counterfeiters who devise new ways to create money for their own enrichment. And, just as the movement to a common, Federally executed currency and the creation of the Secret Service to ferret out counterfeiters after the Civil War brought early counterfeiting to heel, perhaps new regulations or stronger leadership at our current regulator (The Federal Reserve itself, Mr. Bernanke!) will even the economy.
Regulating or constraining the actions of some for the greater public good is not a descent into Socialism – it is precisely what good societies do. Antebellum counterfeiting died when the risks outweighed the potential profits. Modern day counterfeiting will, too, but only if we and our rule-makers are willing to restructure the laws governing the world of lending, investing, trading, and finance. Restructure the rules so that individual short term gains cannot be taken against long term risks. Regulate actions and products - just as it is illegal to print your own money, why can't it be illegal to create products (I'm thinking Credit Default Swaps) that mimic money?
We'd like to think that counterfeiting belongs to a time long ago. But, recent events prove otherwise. Until we address its modern forms, we remain A Nation of Counterfeiters.
So iterates Stephen Mihm's “A Nation of Counterfeiters” - a book that traces the history of counterfeiting in America. But, although the book traces the lives and livelihoods of many of our nation's foremost counterfeiters, it is about much more than just counterfeiting. It is about money as a product.
Through its pages, we read about not only the problems of counterfeit notes, but counterfeit banks (dubbed wildcat banks.) For it was not uncommon in antebellum America for a group of men (and it was men, women were not yet allowed) to obtain a state charter for a bank, set up the vaults and the printers, take their deposits, print and circulate their currency, make loans, take profits (which they quickly exchanged for the currency of a well-known reputable bank), and then shutter their doors, insolvent. This left ostensibly 'real' tender in circulation that had often less value than a well-executed counterfeit note on a good bank.
Bankers have been earning our ire for 200 years.
We're caught in a double-bind. We need money, and for the money supply to correlate with the demand for goods and services and the productive capability we have to fulfill those goods and services. Although we now have a central printer of actual money, the printing presses of the Federal Reserve are not the only way 'money' as we know it comes into existence.
When a bank takes its deposits, say $10 million, it doesn't lend just $9 million back, but perhaps $90 million – thus creating $80 million dollars. That created money serves a purpose: It is the grease that enables a modern economy to run and expand.
But the unevenness of the money supply vis a vis demand and productive capability is a major factor in creating recessions and depressions – periods of adjustment to re-align production, consumption, and restore faith in the economy and the currency.
It would be fine, I suppose, if after a glut of money, it was bankers and other employees of finance who found themselves looking for new lines of work as their sector contracted. But, as we all know, it is predominantly non-finance people who lose their work as a result of too much money.
We need to acknowledge that losing one's job due to a severe contraction in the economy is not the same as losing one's job due to a lack of diligence or laziness. We should concentrate our ire on those most responsible – those who unreasonably profited while creating more money than the economy could absorb.
So, we have a right to be angry at these modern counterfeiters who devise new ways to create money for their own enrichment. And, just as the movement to a common, Federally executed currency and the creation of the Secret Service to ferret out counterfeiters after the Civil War brought early counterfeiting to heel, perhaps new regulations or stronger leadership at our current regulator (The Federal Reserve itself, Mr. Bernanke!) will even the economy.
Regulating or constraining the actions of some for the greater public good is not a descent into Socialism – it is precisely what good societies do. Antebellum counterfeiting died when the risks outweighed the potential profits. Modern day counterfeiting will, too, but only if we and our rule-makers are willing to restructure the laws governing the world of lending, investing, trading, and finance. Restructure the rules so that individual short term gains cannot be taken against long term risks. Regulate actions and products - just as it is illegal to print your own money, why can't it be illegal to create products (I'm thinking Credit Default Swaps) that mimic money?
We'd like to think that counterfeiting belongs to a time long ago. But, recent events prove otherwise. Until we address its modern forms, we remain A Nation of Counterfeiters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)