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.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Avatar
I saw the movie 'Avatar' yesterday.
It really was like nothing I've seen before. The computer generated scenes blended with the real actors. As Greg Moody said, this movie is worth seeing for the visual effects alone. What's really cool is that the visual effects aren't limited to just pyrotechnics, but a vivid realization of an alien world, complete from fearsome carnivores to strange herbivores, surprising insects, and a flora as varied and sometimes startling as found in any rain forest on Earth.
The Science Fiction in the movie does leave a few questions unanswered, and a few inconsistencies. I awoke this morning to a couple of questions of “But what if?” and “If that worked there, why didn't it work later in the movie?”. Part of the movie is very Matrix-like, with humans making a mind-transferring link to another entity; But unlike the Matrix, when the humans leave their Avatar's body, it leaves the Avatar incapacitated, and very vulnerable. Surprisingly, nothing happens to them in that state.
But those are just nits in what is other-wise a fine movie. Although, as has been pointed out, the plot is fairly simple, that's not the point of this particular film. James Cameron has a message to convey, and everything in the movie, from the actions of the aliens and The People, from the portrayal of a rich, green, interconnected and spiritual world contrasted with greedy, destructive and isolated self-interest is used as metaphor to drive the point. It may be a little heavy-handed at times, but this particular message has been given many times with more subtlety, and unheard, so perhaps Mr. Cameron can be forgiven.
Sadly, one of my movie-going friends indicated that many of those that would benefit most by contemplating the message have already rejected it. If only there were a metaphor for a closed mind in the movie...
Ah, yes. In the words of the Na'vi, “You can't add to a vessel that's already full.”
Indeed.
But for those whose vessels are receptive, Avatar is the most richly imagined and vividly realized telling to date. I recommend it.
It really was like nothing I've seen before. The computer generated scenes blended with the real actors. As Greg Moody said, this movie is worth seeing for the visual effects alone. What's really cool is that the visual effects aren't limited to just pyrotechnics, but a vivid realization of an alien world, complete from fearsome carnivores to strange herbivores, surprising insects, and a flora as varied and sometimes startling as found in any rain forest on Earth.
The Science Fiction in the movie does leave a few questions unanswered, and a few inconsistencies. I awoke this morning to a couple of questions of “But what if?” and “If that worked there, why didn't it work later in the movie?”. Part of the movie is very Matrix-like, with humans making a mind-transferring link to another entity; But unlike the Matrix, when the humans leave their Avatar's body, it leaves the Avatar incapacitated, and very vulnerable. Surprisingly, nothing happens to them in that state.
But those are just nits in what is other-wise a fine movie. Although, as has been pointed out, the plot is fairly simple, that's not the point of this particular film. James Cameron has a message to convey, and everything in the movie, from the actions of the aliens and The People, from the portrayal of a rich, green, interconnected and spiritual world contrasted with greedy, destructive and isolated self-interest is used as metaphor to drive the point. It may be a little heavy-handed at times, but this particular message has been given many times with more subtlety, and unheard, so perhaps Mr. Cameron can be forgiven.
Sadly, one of my movie-going friends indicated that many of those that would benefit most by contemplating the message have already rejected it. If only there were a metaphor for a closed mind in the movie...
Ah, yes. In the words of the Na'vi, “You can't add to a vessel that's already full.”
Indeed.
But for those whose vessels are receptive, Avatar is the most richly imagined and vividly realized telling to date. I recommend it.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
The Government Deficit vs Private Saving
Ed Harrison of Credit Writedowns has an excellent post explaining some very pertinent facts about the government deficit as it relates to private saving (wealth) and investment. Well worth reading if you are concerned about the deficit.
The relation he talks about has been well explored by several economists - In 'Stabilizing an Unstable Economy', Minsky adds the financial sector to the sectors that Harrison mentions - and again, shows how additional government deficit equals increases in private and financial sector wealth. The interplay at these aggregate or macro levels often turns intuition on its head...
What I find so interesting about Obama's voicing of concern and a willingness to go down the path of Hoover is that Government Deficit has to be good for business - so why would financial (business) advisers to our politicians push so hard to Balance the Budget?
The relation he talks about has been well explored by several economists - In 'Stabilizing an Unstable Economy', Minsky adds the financial sector to the sectors that Harrison mentions - and again, shows how additional government deficit equals increases in private and financial sector wealth. The interplay at these aggregate or macro levels often turns intuition on its head...
What I find so interesting about Obama's voicing of concern and a willingness to go down the path of Hoover is that Government Deficit has to be good for business - so why would financial (business) advisers to our politicians push so hard to Balance the Budget?
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Disengeneous Anti-Library Screed
I was doing my ballot research, and trying to decide which way I would go on our City Library initiative. Increase taxes to fund the libraries, and prevent closure and a diminishing of services?
I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.
I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?
But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.
Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.
And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).
If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.
I found the Denver Post's for and against articles on the subject, just to gain a small handle.
I visit the libraries regularly - I don't like the idea of purchasing every book I want to read, just those that I might want to read twice. And my children go through books like a worm through apples (okay, maybe not quite: They don't destroy the books!). Although having a large selection of books to read certainly saves me more than the projected $70 a year the tax hike will cost me, do I really want to pay for more library?
But what has really decided me to vote for the measure was the completely disingenuous screed against expanding the library: In the writer's words, technology is overcoming our need for a library. We don't need a library, we just need Amazon and Google, and all will be well.
Except: When I visit the library, the banks of computers that allow our residents to do research on the web are full, lines waiting. The modern library is about much more than just the books on its shelves: It provides research capabilities to those who don't have internet access at home. It provides inter-library loans of books and materials. It provides Google and much more to those who can't afford it. In short, it provides technology equitably to our residents.
And Mr. Golyansky misleads: It's $60 million over 5 years! Sure, while trivially true, It's actually just 12.5 million per year, which is just just under $35 per resident, and roughly $70-$90 per homeowner (based on our median home value). Those are the numbers that matter. Not $60 million. Another perspective: A city our size has an annual budget of $600 million - that's $3 billion over five years! Turns out $60 million is drop in the bucket (a 2% drop).
If the best the opposition can do is to mislead and act like all the library does is purchase books for its shelves (and ignore it's other services completely) - then they lose. At least for my vote. The city libraries are not caught in a technological time-warp - expanding those very technologies that Mr Golyansky wants is exactly why they must raise more revenue.
Jon Ronson and "Them:"
I just finished reading "Them: Adventures with Extremists" by Jon Ronson, and I have to confess that I was initially not sure what to make of it.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Immediately upon finishing, I was a little concerned that I had been hoodwinked: That what I was taking to be a book documentary was really a work of fiction. The closing two chapters had a surreal, out of place feel that didn't seem to fit. I had to look up all the principle players (and they all exist, including footage from a video documentary that Ronson shot while investigating the material.) So, the credibility of Ronson and the events portrayed restored, I returned to my ruminations about the book.
As opposed to stating a thesis and building evidence to support it, "Them:" follows much more the documentary style: The journalist attempts to fade into the background, and not project any of his views onto the raw reporting of the people and events. Through many of the chapters of the book, Ronson achieves this: Omar Bakri, Randy Weaver, Thom Robb, Ian Paisley are allowed to speak without interference.
But, the closing chapters upset this. Ronson visits the Bilderburg Group and the Bohemian Grove, both objects of the conspiracy theories held by many in the earlier chapters. It almost appears that Ronson is now going to point out how silly their theories are, or outright debunk them.
However, he just doesn't do that. Instead of hard evidence, he simply interjects his views onto the events unfolding before him, coloring his reporting. He does reveal the counterpoint view held by two "extremists" who accompany him. Who's view is correct?
And that's the problem. Throughout the book, we are invited to live with the extremists, to see them as people who maybe hold a different viewpoint, to confront their views neutrally, and perhaps learn a little about them. It could provide a good springboard for thinking about us and them, about the origins of beliefs, and the chaotic nature of all belief.
Then he tears this down. Suddenly his viewpoint appears, as if to say: You knew they were wrong all along, go ahead, let's mock them together. No supporting evidence that "we" are correct, that the viewpoint held by "them" is wrong. He closes in exasperation, as though to say there's no hope, and that we should be equally exasperated.
I am. Not with "them", but with Ronson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)