...is 1280 by 1024, and will likely stay that way for some time. I recommend everyone jump on the bandwagon this year and beef on up to the "twelve-ten," as I've been known to call it. If you're 1024 x 768, you need to try a little harder this year. If you're 800 x 600, well... Well, someone should just go directly to your house and beat the hell out of you. We're living in the 21st century, man. Grow the eff up.
On the other hand, if you're one of the 1337s out there with a 1600 x 1200 or some other wackiness, congrats. You've truly made it in this world. I'm proud.
OK, enough of that.
My New Year's resolution this year:
I promise to be more open and honest about my political opinions on this blog.
That's right. Instead of giving people and their dumb opinions the benefit of the doubt, instead of avoiding politically radical and/or offensive statements, I'm going to come right out and tell everyone exactly how I stand on THE ISSUES.
So, to start off right, I've made a list of 49 short statements that might anger someone/most everyone/wieners or otherwise be somehow controversial, yet honest.
I MOSTLY agree with these statements. There is not a single one, though, that I agree with completely. On the other hand, there's not a single one that I completely disagree with. So here goes:
1. The Federal Reserve is not evil.
2. No matter what you think, outsourcing (yes, jobs!) is better for everyone in the long run, and better for the vast majority of people in the short run.
3. The minimum wage mostly hurts the poorest class(es).
4. Unions are almost always unnecessary and harmful.
5. Earned Income Tax Credits reduce the standard of living (income) for the poorest class.
6. There is no "shrinking of the middle class," or anything even remotely similar to it going on.
7. Fiat Money is good - Reverting to the gold standard is retarded.
8. Subsidizing college raises the cost of college and hurts the unsubsidized (especially in the short term).
9. Legal immigration is good for the economy.
10. Illegal immigration is mostly good for the economy.
11. Building a giant Mexican border fence is insane.
12. This is what cussing in British text looks like: &£#%.
13. Ron Paul is a little crazy, and he's a surprisingly crappy economist. I'm not sure if he wants to be one, though, so I guess it doesn't matter.
14. "Fair trade" is stupid and harms the least skilled/highest poverty classes in the third world while helping the semi-skilled, semi-poverty classes (if you know what I mean...)
15. Real monopolies don't exist in a world without "excessive" government regulation.
16. Real tyranny happens just about as often as market tyranny (depending on your definition of tyranny, of course.)
17. Rudy Giuliani is a better and more decent candidate than you think.
18. The frequency with which someone updates their Facebook "status" is roughly correlated to their real world social status. Also, It's annoyingly confrontational (I'll explain that if anyone needs clarification.)
19. People who call themselves Libertarians aren't actually, truly, really real Libertarians.
20. I think of myself as a quasi-Libertarian, by the way.
21. I'm more inclined to vote Democratic over Republican.
22. Some taxes are good.
23. Most taxes are bad.
24. Good economics will help the poor and needy much, much more than "common sense" policies like the minimum wage & welfare.
25. BJS data and Steven Levitt have convincingly argued that the legalization of abortion is one of the primary causes of the huge drop in crime over the past 15 years.
26. CAFE standards (AKA vehicle mileage requirements) don't work even close to as well as a fuel tax would.
27. Carbon offsets might possibly be the most inefficient method of reducing carbon emissions that I could possibly think of (as well as a giant diversion from the real problem).
28. Not getting your baby vaccinated is silly, greedy and dangerous.
29. The death penalty doesn't work in this country, and it barely works in others (that are far, far more brutal). Go ahead, ask me why.
30. Buying a house - unless you're going to rent it out, or if it's a necessity for the family - is NEVER a good financial move, EVER.
31. Memory Foam pads are pretty soft, but not that soft.
32. It'll most likely be cheaper to "offset ALL your carbon emissions" AND drive a reasonably low mileage car for the next 10 years than it is to buy a new Toyota Prius.
33. George W. Bush is not that bad of an economist.
34. John Edwards is terrible when it comes to economic policy.
35. I like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, BOTH, more than any other candidate I've ever thought of. I'd vote for either of them over Bill Clinton (If this were 1992).
36. The world is not "controlled by the World Bank."
37. "Universal health insurance" - depending on how it's done - is not that bad of an idea, considering all benefits & costs.
38. I've never met anyone who agreed with me on every one of the issues in this list.
39. The only bad thing I've ever heard about Bill Clinton (from those who don't like him) was that he had sexual relations with that woman. I can think of a few more bad things, but I've never heard them from other people's mouths.
40. Machines don't "replace workers," and neither do immigrants in this country. Rule of thumb: If the skill level is different than yours, it/him/her can't "take your job," for the most part. If, on the other hand, you have skills equivalent to those of a poor, untrained illegal immigrant, then you just might lose your job, but, courtesy of rampant racism, if you're a white American, you'll probably be fine.
41. Speaking of that, this is probably the best article in the category "general economic theory" that you'll read all year.
42. If you don't like Ronald Reagan, I bet you can't tell me three (3) distinct things he did during his presidency to deserve your dislike.
43. FDR was a dangerously horrible policy maker/economist. His friends were even worse. His ability to motivate and speak, though, were fantastic, and reasonably (even economically) valuable.
44. The war in Iraq was a horrible idea in terms of decency, diplomacy and human respect and rights, but possibly an amazingly clever strategy in terms of U.S. long term goals. I've said it. I can't un-say it. Go ahead, ask me for details, I've got a great BS story.
45. I believe that the word "Gay" in the phrase "Gay Marriage" sufficiently sets it apart from "regular marriage." Besides, the fact that the government has some hand in marrying people - an inherently religious ceremony - is equally as shocking as homosexuals actually preferring to use the word "marriage." Everybody should shut the hell up and let two consenting adults do whatever the hell they want.
46. Martin Scorsese loves gangsters. It's getting weird. The movie "The Departed" isn't too bad, though - you should watch it.
47. If you disagree with any one - ANY one - of the statements in this list, you're probably wrong. I might be wrong, too, but I'd be willing to bet that if you gave me enough time, I could easily convince you that I'm not wrong, which would mean that we'd both be wrong. For the record, that's a much more preferable scenario than the one in which I'm right and you choose not to realize it.
48. I'm tired of listening to music, in general, but for some reason I still love Silverchair and the few songs off their album "Diorama." Also, their new album, "Young Modern," is right up my alley and I totally freakin' love it too. Unlike Diorama, though, I'm not sure I can translate this love. Everyone except for Fred might be in the dark - permanently - about this one.
49. I've spent all day doing nothing, and it's 11:00 PM on New Year's Eve. I'm going to go watch fireworks at the George Washington Memorial Masonic Temple, which should be pretty nifty. I hope. This city is awesome, and anyone who disagrees is a butt.
No time to check for grammatical errors. I'll do it tomorrow. You're all drunk tonight anyway, right? Who the fudge reads (...or writes...) blogs on New Year's Eve?
Welcome to 2008, you 4ECon readin' bastards!
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
My Resolution
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I've had one beer and I'm reading blogs on New Year's Eve. I guess I better finish up this here comment and go ring in the new year with Stacks.
The "never" and "ever" parts of #30 make me have to disagree ever so slightly. I'm sure I disagree on others too but I don't even really know what THE ISSUES are these days. I haven't been very worldly these days.
I know, I was thinking about you home ownin' types when I wrote that. Lemme clarify: Because you can't predict which market will go which direction, it makes any investment that turns out to be a good decision a bad one originally.
If you remember that post I did when I first started this blogthang, I went into much more detail: If you adjust home prices for inflation (this graph), you'll see that people just about break even over longer periods of time, unless they buy right before a boom and sell right before the bust (e.g. buy in 1995 and sell in 2005 or thereabouts). In the boom/bust cases, it's possible to make a VERY good decision & make a LOT of money from your house, but you'll only know that in hindsight... So it's not really a good decision to start out...
If you own your house for a long time, you'll pretty much always (in theory) break even. Even if you bought at a peak, you'd break even if you held for long enough except for this fact: That graph didn't adjust for the average square footage of houses. If you adjust for changing demands (people need larger houses today than they did in the '60s), then holding your house for a long time starts to erode its value, even beyond the "equalizing effects" of booms, busts and inflation. So, while having a house will mostly shield you from inflation over the long term, the house itself will (or probably will) lose its desirability when you try to sell it too far into the future.
So, if you hold your house short term, whether or not it was a good financial decision is entirely dependent on which market you're in and what happens to the market, which is impossible to predict and therefore - by definition - gambling, or just a "bad idea."
If you hold it long term, you'll be shielded from booms & busts and inflation, but it'll lose its desirability in future housing markets and - instead of just breaking even - you'll lose money, which is, again, a bad financial move.
---
The only way to turn a bad initial decision (like if you bought "at the peak") into a good one is to hold it until the next boom. Again, though, this is just hope that another major boom will occur in the future; speculation. There will most likely be another major boom within our lifetimes, though, so I suppose homeowners will probably make up any amount lost today at some point in the future (even through a different house...)
Long story short, "Never" and "Ever" had a stipulation: It could turn out to be a good idea, but is only gambling originally, and gambling is "never, ever" a good financial move.
---
Wow. That was a long effin' comment. Thanks for the bait, Gretchen - I needed something to rant about.
I'm curious what other stuff people disagree with in that list...
If you'd like to throw some more bait, Gretchen, feel free...
Oh, Dave. A New Year's resolution?
1680x1050, yo. awwww yeaaaahhh
Depending upon your personal definition of "quasi-libertarian," I think that numbers 20 and 37 are highly discordant statements. I also think it is your use of quasi which is preventing me from really thrashing 21, 22, and 23. I fancy myself a Libertarian and will fight you on 19 if you like.
There has to be more to your theory of home ownership that I am missing. Are the only gains from owning a house that of potential profit (in resale) and appreciation? What about subjective value and utility?
Since you fancy yourself a quasi-libertarian, is it the quasi part which drives you to make blanket statements about average people (re: "you'll see that people just about break even over longer periods of time")?
I am drawing a blank right now but I heard the following on either an EconTalk podcast or I read it somewhere on The Austrian Economists: "if you let two libertarians argue with one another you will find that either one of them thinks they are more libertarian than the other."
Good post, and I get the sense that D.C. is a major contributor to the political tone of your blog lately.
Also, on home ownership: what about property rights and such?
Do you think FDR would have been against a universal health care system?
You're right, Chris - though when I say "quasi," I mean that there are a few things I'm willing to partially omit...
I'd say my general perspective on things right now is "markets can be tweaked for greater aggregate utility." Maybe that's because I haven't really immersed myself with the Austrians, or maybe because I prefer some semblance of moderation over more dramatic - though possibly better - policy ideas. I would concede, though, Chris, that you're probably more thoroughly Libertarian than I am...
Second thing: Good point about the unmeasured value of homeownership, but I specifically meant that it's not a good financial decision, AKA your wallet won't be fuller when you sell your house (depending on all that crap I was saying, and, as you said, ignoring subjective value, property rights, etc...)
And Gretchen: I'm not saying it was a bad idea for you guys to buy a house - in fact, it was probably not only a good idea for you two personally, but also even financially, given the part of the country you live in and when you bought the thing. I was only being general, by the way, to say that the risk usually outweighs the benefits...
Third thing: FDR would have supported some version of universal health care. His people wouldn't have come up with something as simple and/or basic, though. Unless I just haven't read enough about it, it sounds to me like the Clinton plan will be only minimally financially harmful and not that imposing on individual freedom.
That's a good, pointed question though, Mr. Jeffords: It's "bad economics," (which is why Hillary Clinton lost some points on it in Gamepaign), but it's nothing like price caps, mass subsidies and crappy monetary policy like we had under FDR and his Fed.
Of course, just because it sucks less doesn't make it good policy.
And on that note, just because I'm a fan of some [government] market intervention doesn't make me any less of a quasi-Libertarian, right? :)
If you can't predict which market will go in which direction, wouldn't that make stocks (or any other instrument that could decrease in value, for that matter) a bad investment? (How's that for bait, eh?)
I disagree that houses lose desirability over time. A lot of folks find older houses more appealing because they're in more established neighborhoods, have more established landscaping, are often closer to established business districts, etc. I also generally agree that "they just don't build 'em like they used to." The oldest house I ever lived in was also the one with the most structural integrity. (Obviously this isn't always the case, but I'm sure you've seen examples of it here or there.) A lot of folks are attracted to brand new places, but it's not difficult to make a few changes to an older place to make it more desirable when you go to sell.
In my case there's definitely a sanity element in owning a home rather than renting. I'm not sure you could quantify that in terms of dollars, but it was certainly a factor in deciding whether or not to buy a place.
Wow, good timing on the comment Gretchen -
Regarding stocks: Absolutely - there are little quirks that can be exploited every so often, I think, but for the most part, a short term investment in singular markets/companies is almost always a terrible idea. Over the long term - and so far in our recorded history - stocks are a pretty good investment. The trick is that you can offset your risk with multiple stocks, as you could with multiple types of real estate, but not [usually] with any single one type, or one house, etc...
You know you're right though, and I agree with most of the house stuff. The only problems come with the assumptions that neighborhoods won't get worse, or that people will appreciate 1990s style homes more so in 30 years, or that another housing boom will clearly present itself, or that people won't be demanding 8000 square foot houses in the future... The fact is, all the assumptions buyers and sellers have should be (and are) priced into the cost of your home. The bad part is that future assumptions are based way too strongly on historical events instead of accurate forecasts these days. If there was a way to undercut the fact that people believe it's "always a good idea to buy a home," it would suddenly become a lot easier to make money from knowing which markets would or should perform better, or how a house might appeal to people in the future. If every house is treated as a potential great investment, though, then houses in general cease to be great investments. Know what I mean? (Optimism makes things expensive.)
Basically, buying a house is only a good idea when the market is generally unsure about whether or not it's a good idea to buy a house. The problem is that it's therefore only financially smart when you're being a contrarian, and being a contrarian is risky enough to outweigh the [financial] benefits of buying a house.
The most important thing, though, is not the guarantee of a financial payoff 10 or 30 or 50 years down the line - it's your point in your last paragraph: Over the long term, the value of being safe/comfortable/sane/established/etc is pretty impossible to add to the price of an asset, so if you value these things and have patience, you'll get that utility or subjective value that Chris Jeffords brought up. Buying a house is probably almost always a good idea, just not necessarily a good money-maker. As you suggested, though, that's not really why people buy houses, is it? (Except for the moronic "flippers" in Tucson...)
Dave,
I agree that we could tweak markets to derive some sort of impact, but I am skeptical that we would ever be able to follow the effects through with clarity and ease. The only way I am willing to offer "tweaking" as a method of bringing "greater efficiency" to a given market (to be as vague as I possibly can be) is by reducing the number of government interventions and regulations. Without elaborating further, it would be my hope that in reducing certain regulations we would see a market which could function more independently and be governed more so by unadulterated(less government involvement) choice.
I do agree with you Chris, by the way, as I usually do. It's hard to actually debate you on anything because there's very little you say that I don't believe in.
The one area in which we might differ, though, is in your amount of optimism for how we could operate as a country. You're stating theory, and I'm generally (these days) more likely to say, "Well, we've screwed this (like, say, health care) up so much so far that it would be far too harmful to fix, not to mention politically impossible. So let's 'tweak' the intervention instead..."
I'm not sure, though, if I should push more for ideals and believe that what's right is right, or if I should ignore "proper" economics and argue for what I think is right given the circumstances. (Take Paul Krugman, by the way: He's a perfect example of someone that only cares about the circumstances.)
I think you might be right about the DC effect...
Post a Comment