This is kaleberg's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following kaleberg's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
kaleberg
Recent Activity
This is related to the difference between MA and CA tech entrepreneurs. In MA, the goal is a comfortable income, nice vacations, the ability to practice one's art, kid's soccer games, a nice retirement and so on. In CA, the goal is to make a killing, become a household name, become a mover and shaker, work all night, not know the names of your kids without checking your iPhone and so on. Obviously, the MA dream is easier to achieve than the CA dream, but people are drawn to both. An economist would pay $1,000 for a ticket in a lottery with one in a trillion odds of winning a quintillion dollars as the ticket would be worth a cool million. Why turn down a sure thing? An ordinary human would pass, spurning an obvious fortune, to the sheer amazement of the economics community.
1 reply
In the last five or ten years I have been personally involved in crowd funding restaurant development. Basically, I purchased a future gift card at a discount. I've also funded a number of business projects, primarily in publishing, through Kickstarter. This used to be a job for the banking sector, but the banking sector has been basically AWOL as far as funding actual businesses goes. There is more money to be made in finance. We made a big mistake not letting the financial sector go under a few years back. We could have easily replaced it with a Federal Reserve retail loan and deposit window like the one farmers already have. It would have eliminated a lot of overhead and probably cut the effective risk undertaken by the government, especially given that the financial sector assumes that it has "financial f---up" insurance. Even better, it would have funded actual businesses.
1 reply
I'm not sure, but I make my living either from magnetic polarity or laser cut indentations. Yeah, I'm a rentier. People do things for me and give me things because of various entries in computer databases. Yes, I know it's because of goods and services that I provided at various times in the past, but it is still very mysterious to me. Since the entire idea of values and just desserts involves a fair bit of mysticism, it makes sense to develop a mysticism that gives you what you want, even if it deprives others of what they need. The Divine Right of Kings was not a new idea. As long as you distribute enough goodies to your flunky enforcer class so that they don't depose you, you can ride this pony for millennia.
1 reply
I always loved The Candlemass Road. I thought it was one of Fraser's best. Of course, in The Reavers, he took it all back, though he borrowed the opening, insisting that the latter was truly the novel he meant to write. Fraser's Flashman was a marvelous character, a complete coward, womanizer, cad and scoundrel who managed to sleep with queens and show girls, get drunk with princes and kings, and survive nearly every major battle of the 19th century. I only hope Flashman will have a 20th century counterpart, becoming an accidental hero at Port Arthur, surviving the Somme, screwing Idi Amin's mistress, cowering through Hiroshima in the basement of a whorehouse, and the like.
1 reply
Ah yes, the famous tedium of being bombed.
1 reply
Meanwhile, in Russia, the Tsar did buy and emancipate the serfs. I gather it cost about $6M, which was raised by selling Alaska.
1 reply
Harwood is hoping to write a good "Obama wasting our hard earned taxpayer money on travel to all 50 states" article. The headline sells itself.
1 reply
Government at its heart is behind most market failures. Markets can only be optimal in stateless systems. This flows from the mathematics of markets, though it is usually glossed over. Markets can only be effective if they are reset on each round of bidding. By enforcing private property rights, the government introduces all sorts of market failures and inefficiency. Markets also fail when the government steps in and enforces intellectual property rights such as patents and copyrights. The US did much better in the 19th century when these rights were lightly enforced. The innovator rarely collects much from innovating. It is usually the more practical sorts who get rich on good ideas, so cracking down on patents and copyrights - perhaps even eliminating them - would enhance market operations. The government further screws up markets by allowing limited liability corporations which generate moral hazard. If investors were all personally liable to the extent of their assets, as opposed to being sheltered by government fiat, markets would operate much more efficiently and morally. The bulk of the industrial revolution was built without limited liability corporations, so we know they are far from essential.
1 reply
That's horrible news. I'm so sorry. My thoughts and prayers go with you.
Toggle Commented Jun 19, 2013 on The Saddest News at Economist's View
1 reply
You might have also mentioned that systems which only support upward redistribution eventually drift downhill and stagnate, unless there is some other nation that they can export to, one that does have downward redistribution. The U.S. has always been into redistribution. Even peasants could own land if they were willing to work it. Where do you think Marx got the idea for land reform?
Toggle Commented Jun 17, 2013 on The importance of redistribution at ataxingmatter
I think it was Robert Townsend, the man who turned around Avis back in the 1960s, who wrote in Up the Organization that every company needs someone who will just wander around the company until he spots corporate bullshit, then screams "bullshit" at the top of his lungs until the bullshit is removed.
1 reply
It's not homeopathy. The scientific idea is to treat them with very small, but measurably finite doses. The idea is to inure without doing more harm than necessary. The homeopathic idea would be that the less peanut in the anti-allergen, the more effective it would be. The scientist would argue that below a certain level, there would be no reaction and no desensitizing. The approaches are quite different.
1 reply
Hayek's macro is easy to understand. He said everything with his title of his book, The Road to Serfdom. It is touching faith in the free market that led to serfdom once, and is likely to lead us there again.
Toggle Commented May 26, 2013 on 'The Hangover Theory' at Economist's View
1 reply
The problem with the pendulum analogy is that it doesn't explain what actually happens. While investment and consumption are, at least as far as the equations go, symmetric, the wealthy who tend to do the investing and lobbying argue that investing is special as it is their ox that might get gored. The Austrians argue that the pendulum should be stimulated on the investment side, to the benefit of the wealthy, and damped on the consumption side, to the detriment of those less wealthy. That's the big policy stickiness that we have to deal with, and it usually takes a long, slow political and cultural change to convince government to intervene on behalf of their smaller donors.
Toggle Commented May 26, 2013 on 'The Hangover Theory' at Economist's View
1 reply
I think the argument was that the expansion and contraction of credit does have a 1 to 1 relationship with consumption PLUS investment. Keynes recognized that there is no fundamental asymmetry between consumption and investment, despite the Austrian argument that one exists.
Toggle Commented May 26, 2013 on 'The Hangover Theory' at Economist's View
1 reply
Economic growth requires investment which produces returns. Since the information flow involves time delays and hysteresis, there is usually a fair bit of over-investment. Rarely is the investment opportunity big enough to reward all takers. Was too much money printed? Sure, in the sense that the investment opportunity was much more limited than most investors thought, if they thought about it at all. Any free economic system is going to have bubbles. The alternative is to have a heavily damped system that discourages investment. If you look at the recent real estate bubble in the US, the impact was worst where there was the most economic freedom, but much less serious where free market sorts whined most loudly about government regulation. You can have bubbles in non-free market systems as well, but the impact is usually different The government takes the whole hit.
What a weird fantasy world economists live in. They talk about people choosing to enter the work force. Most people never have that choice. They are usually stuck in the work force, and losing a job means entering a nether world of poverty, marginalization and depression. One gets the impression that economists imagine that every worker is born with some kind of trust fund, and if they don't feel like working for a year or two, all they do is quit, and rely on their dynastic inheritance. What causes this? Are economists required to take drug tests? This kind of delusion suggests they are unqualified to operate heavy equipment. Do economics departments provide ether inhalers? Surely someone has some insight into this.
1 reply
By buying up assets like mortgage-backed securities. By buying up companies like GM and Citigroup. By refunding the money to taxpayers by cutting taxes. By spending the money directly. Is there any reason to believe that any of the first three of these are even slightly likely to have a real economic impact on the real economy? Most spending and investment decisions are based on consumer cash flow and none of those three are going to have much impact on that. I'm sure the economics community has some complicated eighteen step explanation involving the conversion of phlogiston into radium as step seven, but very few people do much more than cash their paycheck and spend it, no phlogiston or radium involved. If people aren't increasing their spending, then very few companies are going to increase their spending, no matter how much cash they may have sitting on hand. Even spending money directly has its problems, unless it gets spent on small fry paychecks, and by "small fry", I mean maybe up to two times the median income. Still, it is the most likely of the four.
1 reply
Someone should get up a ratings agency for pundits so you can tell how accurate his or her predictions have been and, so, how seriously you should consider their writings. Maybe someone could do this as a browser extension that shows the BS rating in one of the tool bars. I'll bet you could get the basic funding put together on Kickstarter in no time. P.S. Don't expect to find everything in peer reviewed literature. You'd be hard pressed to find a citation for simple facts like the sun rising in the east or water running downhill.
1 reply
It's called fractional reserve banking. You've just explained the purpose of Glass-Steagal and the FDIC.
1 reply
Ryan: "On competition, I'm young, but didn't magazines do analysis, and weren't some magazines focused on a small set of issues, with a little attention to issues beyond the expertise of the staff?" You are quite correct. I think the press got out of analysis in the late 70s or early 80s. There was a big push into analysis starting in the 1930s, and it continued through the 1960s. Magazines often had huge research departments, mainly women, who would pore over obscure documents and periodical back issues to determine the typical pay of a soot collector back in 1883 or whatever. A surprising number of mainstream magazines from the 30s-50s read like modern blogs, complete with the snarky overtones. Most media, of course, never did much analysis, preferring to work form the corporate playsheet. Business reporting, however, did real analysis, because people used it to make business decisions. You could find good business reporting into the 80s, but by the 90s it was all fluff, personalities, money worship, and political dogma. The blog world arrived just in time, along with easier access to source documents.
1 reply
Apple-ism is rather ironic coinage considering that Apple relies on its Apple Store managed community to boost sales and provide user support. For all the fact that Apple Stores are indeed stores, they are collegial, interactive, communal and require user presence. They are quite different from Dell and other vendors who rely on an online purchase model and support via online forums. It is further ironic in that Apple has always concentrated on the user experience and rarely gets into easy to measure contests of product specification. Apple will even compromise on using the latest or most powerful components if they feel it would result in higher perceived quality. Apple draws a real distinction between higher quality and cheaper, often taking a bum rap for having high cost products in consequence.
1 reply
I think education technology is overrated. Surprisingly few students can actually learn all that much just by reading a book as they lack the context and skills to do so. This includes students I have worked with who have scored in the 700s on the verbal part of the SAT and are adept at understanding narrative and literary technique. Modern textbooks don't help as they are horrendously written. It would be a wonder if anyone could learn anything from them. Even if the texts were better written, it would only help somewhat. Most students aren't taught how to learn by reading. (In this they have been cheated, but that is another matter.) Computer aided instruction is even worse. The CS student I am tutoring at Stanford and the pre-calculus student I am tutoring at the local community college have to deal with awful teaching software. The former has to deal with a variety of configuration issues, bad documentation, language implementation problems and so on. The latter has to deal with an automated homework grading system that has to be coaxed and cajoled into accepting correct answers thanks to a variety of format and precision issues. No student should have to face the monsters of configuration management or the dark art of numerical analysis until they have acquired the necessary power levels. The only real hope is a community of scholars both teaching and learning. Online forums can help, but they diffuse responsibility, and the wisdom of crowds is in no way comparable to the wisdom of someone who actually has a clue as to what is going on.
1 reply
From the accounts I've heard, the decision to kill a POW was usually made shortly after the capture. The US had enough trouble with soldiers' natural hesitance to fire at a human being in battle, so I'm guessing that it took an unusual man to kill a prisoner in cold blood. My guess is that the marine's were just griping, and who could blame them. There was probably paperwork required for each POW.
1 reply