American debt levels are hugely out of line with other countries. I’m a big fan of American exceptionalism, but in this case, I’ll say that we’re at least partially in error. We need to take the downside of leverage much more seriously, starting with our nation’s business schools. OF course, I don’t expect people taking on $100,000 worth of debt to be too easy to persuade of the dangers of leverage.
Megan McArdle, “Asymmetrical Information: Learning to (un)Love Leverage”, The Atlantic, 2009-07-17
July 18, 2009
QotD: Leverage
Comments Off on QotD: Leverage
Walter Cronkite
I wasn’t really a TV news-watcher during his heyday (actually, it was a habit I’ve pretty much avoided all my life), but Jesse Walker sums up my feelings nicely here:
It [Cronkite running for president] was a joke, of course. But it was a wistful what-if of a joke, and it resonated. Time soon ran letters hailing the idea. “He knows more about national and international problems than any other two candidates put together,” declared one reader, “and, as a duty, I think he would accept the miserable job.” Four years later, the newsman was still fending off suggestions that he run for the office and “make a difference.” Can you imagine anyone spouting such a fantasy about any of our anchors today? Maybe Stewart or Colbert, but not someone who delivers the news with a straight face.
And that’s good. Cronkite’s influence was a product of the three-network era, a time we should be happy to have put behind us. I’m sorry to see the man die, but I’m glad no one was able to fill his shoes.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005594.html.)
Comments Off on Walter Cronkite
July 16, 2009
Rephrasing Ben Franklin’s old aphorism
Benjamin Franklin is often quoted as having said “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. Here’s a modern rephrasing, “The more you cede your own well-being to an 800-pound gorilla, the more that 800-pound gorilla is going to act like a thin-skinned asshole.“.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005589.html.)
Comments Off on Rephrasing Ben Franklin’s old aphorism
July 15, 2009
Entertaining Timewaster
This should be a doddle for USians, but not so easy for those of us who always confuse those square-ish states in flyover country: Know Your States.
I managed 90%, but I dropped New Jersey accidentally, which certainly messed up my accuracy.
H/T to “JtMc” for the link.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005585.html.)
It’s been 40 years . . . why haven’t we gone back?
On July 20th, it will have been 40 years since many of us clustered around our tiny black-and-white televisions, watching the first moon landing (or for those of you of conspiracist leanings, a really convincing sound stage in Area 51). Why, after all this time, haven’t we gone further? Why, for that matter, have we not been back to the moon for over a generation? Ronald Bailey explains the real reason:
The Apollo moon landings have often been compared to the explorations of Christopher Columbus and the Lewis and Clark expedition to Oregon. For example, on the 20th anniversary of the first moon landing, President George H.W. Bush declared, “From the voyages of Columbus to the Oregon Trail to the journey to the Moon itself: history proves that we have never lost by pressing the limits of our frontiers.”
But what boosters of the moon expeditions overlook is that the motive for pressing the limits of our frontiers in those cases was chiefly profit. In his report from his first voyage, Columbus predicted that his explorations would result in “vast commerce and great profit.” The extension of commerce was also the chief justification that President Thomas Jefferson gave in his secret message to Congress requesting $2,500 to fund what would become the Lewis and Clark expedition.
Forty years later, as we bask in the waning prestige that the Apollo missions earned our country, we must keep in mind that humanity will some day colonize the moon and other parts of the solar system, but only when it becomes profitable to do so.
Back in 1969, my friend Alan Fairfield and I sat in fascination (at least in the golden memory, they do . . . we were nine: I doubt that we paid as much attention to the broadcast as his mother thought we should). Mrs. Fairfield told us that we’d be able to go to the moon ourselves by the time we were grown up. It didn’t turn out that way, and at the current rate of progress, it may not turn out that way for my grandkids.
But I still hope, one day . . .
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005583.html.)
Comments Off on It’s been 40 years . . . why haven’t we gone back?
July 14, 2009
Monticello: Jefferson’s machine for living
While I enjoyed my visit and tour of Monticello, back in 2006, I didn’t get the full story. Wired tries to rectify that problem:
Thomas Jefferson loved new technology and modding his surroundings to his lifestyle. From food to comfort to efficiency, he was always looking for ways to improve his living space with inventions and hacks. If he were alive today, we like to think he’d be reading Wired.
Jefferson thought of his house, Monticello, as a machine for living. As such, it contains many insights into how a DIY gear-nut of today might have fared in the 18th Century.
“I would argue we are trying to debunk the madman-genius, nutty-professor image of Thomas Jefferson,” said Monticello curator Elizabeth Chew. “He is someone who was trying to adapt the latest technology in every realm of existence: science, how the house functions, in the garden. He is trying to put into use new ideas.”
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005578.html.)
Comments Off on Monticello: Jefferson’s machine for living
July 12, 2009
Sauce for the goose
Rick Newcombe provides an insight into why Los Angeles is suffering from a killer combination of rising unemployment and tax rates that no longer meet expenses:
[. . .] 15 years ago we had a dispute with the city over our business tax classification. The city argued that we should be in an “occupations and professions” classification that has an extremely high tax rate, while we fought for a “wholesale and retail” classification with a much lower rate. The city forced us to invest a small fortune in legal fees over two years, but we felt it was worth it in order to establish the correct classification once and for all.
After enduring a series of bureaucratic hearings, we anxiously awaited a ruling to find out what our tax rate would be. Everything was at stake. We had already decided that if we lost, we would move.
You can imagine how relieved we were on July 1, 1994, when the ruling was issued. We won, and firmly planted our roots in the City of Angels and proceeded to build our business.
Everything was fine until the city started running out of money in 2007. Suddenly, the city announced that it was going to ignore its own ruling and reclassify us in the higher tax category. Even more incredible is the fact that the new classification was to be imposed retroactively to 2004 with interest and penalties. No explanation was given for the new classification, or for the city’s decision to ignore its 1994 ruling.
Their official position is that the city is not bound by past rulings — only taxpayers are. This is why we have been forced to file a lawsuit. We will let the courts decide whether it is legal for adverse rulings to apply only to taxpayers and not to the city.
The rule of law requires that both parties are equally subject to the outcome of a trial, win or lose. The city clearly feels that it’s above that.
(Cross-posted to the old blog, http://bolditalic.com/quotulatiousness_archive/005574.html.)
Comments Off on Sauce for the goose
