CatSkinner

Double-Speak from Google

2006-01-26T01:11:00.000-05:00

I may expand this into a story, but for now just enjoy the irony of what I am about to show you.

This is Google's website as of 1:06AM Eastern on 1/26/06.

For a direct link, click here. Hopefully you will get to see it before it gets changed.

Particularly funny and/or disturbing is the bit about how they "believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion" of sites in their search results.

Target and Plan-B: Looney Tunes and Choice

2005-12-02T10:32:00.000-05:00

Target has a policy that states that its pharmacists do not have to fill any prescription for Plan-B (EC from hereafter) if they have strongly held religious beliefs that prevent it.

Target to Planned ParentHood
"In the rare event that a pharmacist’s beliefs conflict with filling a guest’s prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest’s prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy."

Planned ParentHood is really upset over this, but let us look at from two different angles, one from a purely business perspective and one from a classical liberal perspective.

The Business Perspective
For Target, this is a tough spot to be in to be sure. They are stuck between two activism camps that have been fiercely competing in a "whose the wackiest mofo" competition for years now. I am talking about the pro-abortion groups and the anti-abortion groups. On one hand, you have a policy that requires a pharmacist, even if they are the only one on duty, to fill a prescription that they may have religious issues with. In doing so, Target is inviting national media attention and big ugly lawsuits. On the other hand, you have a policy that is sure to anger pro-abortion groups because Target does not force its employees to fill every prescription. Target made the logical business choice, to avoid lawsuits. As they see it, they are clearly violating law by implementing the first option and not violating any law by implementing the second. There is no law, regardless of what any media outlet has printed, that requires any retailer to sell anything they choose not to sell.

For reference, here is an interesting letter to the editor of the PennState Collegian arguing against their editorial. This type of writing is indicative of many publications positions that purport law where none exists.

Philosophically Speaking
Any person or entity in business has the right to provide, or not to provide, any good or service. That is the essence of the free-market system that we try to have in the United States. The only time this should be interfered with is when there is a complete or partial monopoly in providing a specific good or service, because in monopoly conditions the views of the business can be imposed on the consumer, thus removing choice. I think we can all agree without any debate that in the pharmacy business there is no monopoly held by any one retailer, by any definition of the word. With this established, we can see that this policy follows the basic guidelines of classical liberalism.

1. The company at large does not force its employees to do anything that is against their personal beliefs. This preserves the idea that the value system of the individual is paramount.

2. The company does not infringe on the right of the consumer to purchase the good by creating a policy that explicitly bans the sale, keeping with the idea in number 1.

3. Since the pharmacy market is populated by many different firms, this policy does not infringe upon the choice of a consumer to consume said good. Their choice and values are respected while not trampling on others values and choices.

I could not say it any better than Mr. Andrew Criado said it in his letter to the Collegian

"That's the beauty of the free market: choice."

Additional References:
http://www.saveroe.com/target
Duluth Superior

Chinese Currency: The Market Forces Fairness

2005-11-18T16:26:00.000-05:00

China and the United States have a trade deficit. Ok, big deal. That happens all of the time throughout the world. A problem exists, however, when the country in question has experienced economic growth of 7 to 10 percent since 1994 and its currency has increased in value by 0%. This issue has been extremely politicized, but it still has very basic principles behind it.

The Chinese are doing what is best for the Chinese. That is, they are artificially depressing export prices and pulling trade from other nations in the world. This is not all bad news for the US. In fact, many US economists say that a revaluation is actually not in the interest of the US. They argue that this would cause a large drag on the global economy, depress US currency on the global market, and cause an economic crisis. On the other side, many in the US, particularly organized labor, are pushing for either revaluation or floating (allowing market determination of exchange-rates) of Chinese currency. It is ironic that an organization (AFL-CIO) that pushes policies that would have similar effects for their members at home is the one fighting this, but nationalism provides no shortage of irony. They argue that the current situation provides China with unfair competitive advantage as it makes their goods relatively cheaper than other nations goods. There have been claims that Chinese currency is under-valued by as much as forty percent. In the past, particularly in the Japanese case, removing a currency-peg has the undesirable consequences of deflation and struggling domestic industry.

This is where things get sticky. The Chinese will most certainly experience deflation nearly instantly as prices for raw-materials (the factor of production that China does NOT have a surplus of) will fall and prices will tumble. Foreign investment will slow and the resulting low-price pressure on Chinese companies will be disastrous. Their feeble banking system, which already has a glut of unpaid loans, may even collapse. And to top it off, the thing of which deflation is made, bankruptcies, will skyrocket as foreign demand for goods slows and businesses, laden by overcapacity, begin to collapse. The outcomes for the US, on the other hand, are less certain. Some believe that this, coupled with the real-estate market and the over-abundance of credit, will cause deflation here at home as well. Others say that the increase in price level will produce an inflationary shock, albeit a mild one, and the US will gain competitiveness and jobs. While this picture is surely a bit too rosy, it is plausible. It is also possible that because many companies use Chinese made inputs to boost competitiveness the US job market and overall industrial economy may be hurt. The policy of China financing public debt by investing their glut of US currency in US T-bills would then slow and the US government, and economy, would be in big trouble.

So we should do nothing?

NO! This is the biggest mistake of all, we have to act. The reason is that the currency peg cannot last forever. The pressure on the Chinese financial system from such a glut of reserves is already causing stress. Eventually, if nothing is done, the system will fail and China will suffer a major recession. This will have disastrous effects on the entire world. The fact is, a currency peg that does not at least attempt to find equilibrium will cause market distortions that will be painful to correct. We have to look long-term, and in the long-term, the market will force corrections, and it will not be as gradual about them as the world governments could be. The end issue is that, this is going to be painful for China no matter when they do it and probably for the US as well. If the distortions are not gradually eliminated now, the pain that will be caused when the eventually do end will only be intensified.

The Natural Fairness of the Market

The market, when properly regulated, demands fairness. It attributes no importance to nationality, race, or sex. Labor is cheaper in China, therefore the market naturally begins an arbitrage process to balance out the imbalance. Labor prices fall in those nations with high labor prices (thus the Union resistance to globalization) and begin to increase, aggregately, in those with lower cost. However, the market always punishes cheaters. The Chinese currency peg is unfair to the poorest nations in the world. It hurts un-skilled labor demand in every poor country in the world. The US, by dumping capital into the Chinese economy, has not been losing that much, because we reap part of the benefits of the lower prices. In the end, China and the US will lose. Nationalist policies cannot survive in a global-market. These policies, unless limited to temporary relief for short-term emergencies, will backfire. The incredible complexity of the market can be summed up in a phrase that everyone knows. "You can't get something for nothing." When nations try to get an unfair advantage from the global market, they inevitably pay the price.

French Equality

2005-11-04T11:29:00.000-05:00

     In the past week France has been dealing with the rioting of a minority group that feels subjugated. While the riots were set off by the deaths of two boys in Clichy-sous-Bois, that is clearly not the only reason.

     It seems odd to me that a nation that prides itself on equality, that embraces largely socialist ideals, that some in the US think is superior, should have these types of problems. It is striking that after years of education and social programs that re-distribute wealth, the problem of unemployment has not been decreased, but rather increased.

     It seems that adopting socialist policies, placing responsibility for fixing societies problems on the doorstep of government (and giving the them the power to do so i.e. taxes), does not produce the kind of results that many "progressives" would have us believe. Perhaps individualism, and not entitlement and reliance on the state, is the best way forward.

References:
BBC News: French Riots Spread Beyond Paris
Fox News: French Riots

Exxon: The Market's Favorite Lover

2005-10-31T13:19:00.000-05:00

     Everytime a cable company wants to change it's prices, it has to go through a government procedure to do so. Oil companies are subject to no such regulation. Think about that one for a few minutes...........ok........now you're starting to formulate a question...........

Why?
     The answer seems quite simple at first, because the cable prices in areas where there is no competition would be subject to abuses, while oil, on the other hand, is priced based solely on the market. The oil industry does not set it's own prices and therefore are not at fault when they are forced to reap enormous profits. How much is enormous? Exxon posted third quarter earnings (that's all profit folks) of $9 Billion. So why am I writing an article about this. Exxon is only making that much money because the market says they should, right? Well, yes.....and no.

The Market Stole My Cheese!
     The market-price is set by the current meshing of supply and demand. This works well in most industries as it ensures an efficient use of resources and helps foster fierce competition between suppliers to lower costs. The problem with oil is that it does not follow the standard rules.

The supply of oil is inelastic. Capacity is finite and at the present time is almost always running at maximum.

The demand for oil is also rather inelastic. Whether price goes up or down, people go to work, planes fly, and trucks........ummm, truck.

There is no incentive to create more capacity. This point relates to the above point in that since demand is inelastic there is no reason to invest in new refineries or oil-exploration. Another investment-discouraging factor is the complete lack of supplement goods. There are, at this time, no commercially viable alternatives. It is oil or nothing. Therefore, there is no risk of reduced demand and insufficient incentive to increase it; no reason to invest in increased capacity.

Does this make the oil-industry evil?
Not really. They are acting in their shareholders best interests by maximizing profits. It is, after all, very possible that this is an example of the market mechanism working exactly as it should. As this resource becomes scarce the price-pressure forces us to become more efficient in our use of it and to search for other options. Certainly this is better than having price controls which would lull the world into complacency about efficiency and alternative energy sources and ensure a massive depression when the pumps dry up.

The Question
It is possible that there is corruption in the oil-industry that would have them manipulating supply to keep prices high, but that is a question of legality, not of economics, so let us leave it alone for now. Therefore, knowing what we now know, what is the correct course of action? Should the market be left to work its magic? Should society intervene, and if so how? These are questions that are being asked in this article, not answered. That is your job.

Cooperation, Collectivism, and the Enemy

2005-10-30T17:40:00.000-05:00

“It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program—on the hatred of an enemy, … than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they,” the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action.” … “The enemy, whether he be internal, like the “Jew” or the “kulak,” or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.”
-F. A. Hayek, The Road To Serfdom

What is the reason for any grouping of individuals? People group themselves in order to achieve a common goal, no matter what it is. The curious thing about the psychology of the group is that, the larger it becomes, the less its cohesiveness is based upon the common end for which the group was formed, because people cannot agree on anything but the most basic and simple ends, but by the perceived threat to their group of a common enemy.

The first step on this path is to find a central goal that will unite as many people as possible. Here is where most movements fail, as only the most intelligent of leaders will realize that a goal on which the group can agree will never be broad enough to achieve a unitary purpose. In order to cement the group, something that can be agreed upon must be found (or created). This takes the form of a common enemy. An enemy on which the individuals of the group can heap all of the problems that befall them (including the problems the leader himself creates). So the common purpose is not really what keeps the group together, it is the enemy to that purpose that drives the collectivism.

“Our country and all the other socialist countries want peace; so do the peoples of all the countries of the world. The only ones who crave war and do not want peace are certain monopoly capitalist groups in a handful of imperialist countries which depend on aggression for their profits.”
-Chairman Mao

“Anti-Semitism is the unifying element of the reconstruction of Germany.”
-Alfred Rosenberg

There are some aberrations in this process. The most common is where the leader creates a common enemy unwittingly. He sees difficulties and failures in achieving his goals and heaps all of these things on another person or group that does not agree with him. Instead of searching for common ground and keeping the actions of the group confined to that area, he pursues his own purposes and inevitably, experiences difficulty. When he attacks the other person(s) he genuinely believes that they are trying to thwart him in every way and draws followers to his battle cry. From this point on the thoughts of the group continue on their downward spiral and any number of evil intentions and misdeeds are attributed to the “invented” enemy. In the end, if the group does not win their struggle against the enemy, which has, most likely, been antagonized into the same behavior pattern, the purpose becomes so distorted that it, in its original form, ceases to exist and the only purpose left is to fight the enemy.

The leaders of a group can prevent this fate from befalling their cause, but normally do not. Normally the leader will either foster this behavior or allow it to grow unchecked in hopes that it will bolster his position. When a leader takes this road he insures that his original purpose will go un-fullfilled.

Napster and Penn State: Invading Students Homes

2005-10-20T15:35:00.000-04:00

In the fall of 2003, Penn State University began offering the Napster service to all students living in on campus housing and later in 2004 to any student enrolled at any location of the University. University President Graham Spanier wrote an op-ed piece and noted that he was, “excited by this program that provides a legitimate alternative to piracy and promises to curb the theft of intellectual property on our campuses.” There are several problems with this program, both practical and ethical.

First, let us examine the practical issues.

Napster is not compatible with the I-Pod. According to recent market data the I-Pod commands between 70 and 80 percent of MP3-player market share. Is it not unreasonable to assume, then, that the same proportion of MP3 players in the Penn State system are also I-Pods. For these students, Napster is a complete waste. The songs cannot be transferred to their I-Pod, even if they are purchased. This creates a situation where all songs purchased by these students will be from I-Tunes, not from Napster. These students pay for Napster anyways.

A music service is not a necessity. Many students would consider television service a necessity and there is no doubt that in a modern University an internet connection is certainly required. A music service, however, is not necessary for anything besides the occasional arts class. It is much more economical to require the students of these classes to purchase a musical download service or CD on their own. After all, if the music is required for a course, how is it any different from a required textbook?

Music download services, unlike, for example, Cable television, are not limited to a geographical area. A consumer’s choice in cable providers is, in most instances, limited to one provider because of physical constraints. An online music service has no such limitations. With an internet connection, there are few, if any, factors that limit the consumer’s choice. Why not allow students to decide if they want Napster, or any download service for that matter?

How much university funds are being used to purchase something that, for all intents and purposes, is useful for nothing more than entertainment? The price charged to the University has never been released, but if the cost is calculated at normal Napster rates Penn State would be incurring a charge of over $800,000 per month. Even at a fifty percent discount rate, the charge is still significant. What is the cost-effectiveness?

As it can be seen, the service is not at all practical, but these are not (in this writers opinion) as disturbing as the ethical issues that this program raises.

While the University being close friends with the RIAA does raise questions, there are few answers from which to base a sound conclusion. Another cause for concern, also not the main cause, is the University’s deliberate attempt to eliminate the use of any P2P network. The school has not blocked P2P communications but has imposed data-transfer volume limits for the specific purpose of eliminating the usefulness of P2P networks. This was proved by the school’s own admission during an Internet2 member meeting. The following is an excerpt from a Question and Answer session with Russell Vaught, a Penn State University employee.

Question: “How do you stop students from going to “the dark side” when the music costs $0.95/song?”

Vaught: “We’d already implemented rate limiting to dorms. You are allowed x access/day; if you violate the ban 4 times, you get cut off the network for good.”

The main issue that is most troubling is one that has been scarcely noticed and completely un-reported. It is that this service is not purchased for resident hall students only. That activity, while still inefficient and impractical, would still be ethical. Concerning the residence halls the University has every right to prevent P2P access and to force residents to accept the Napster program because it owns the buildings and the web connection included in them. The wisdom (or lack-thereof) of limiting or preventing a technology that facilitates the completely free flow of information not-withstanding, it is completely acceptable that the University control what goes into its buildings through its internet connections. The major issue has to do with the remainder of the eighty or-so thousand students that do not live in the Universities buildings and do not access the internet with University bandwidth. The following is an excerpt from Napster.

For these students, the forcing of the Napster service is tantamount to the university choosing which cable company that they will use in their homes! Penn State University, a state institution, is choosing which service that these students will support at their home, through their internet connection, located on their private property. This goes against the very individualist foundations of our society in that it allows a state institution to support one company over others and to force the individual to employ their private capital in the means it sees fit. It is unknown how Penn State’s administration is able to justify this action.

“The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”
-Adam Smith

What exactly is the University doing? Why are students not allowed to make their own decisions as to what service they will use? Finally, why is Penn State University attempting to control what people do with their internet connections in their own homes? Certainly an institution of higher learning should know better.

The Beginning.....

2005-10-19T18:38:00.000-04:00

I have no idea how you stumbled upon this small corner of the web, but allow me to welcome you. If you are wondering about the topics that this blog will focus on, I can't really help you.......yet. The truth of the matter is that I don't know at this point.

There are, however, a few things I can assure that you will not find.

1. Totally off-the-wall philosophy.
This is not a whacko's rant page.

2. Math.
I hereby pledge to avoid the inclusion of this (in complex forms) at all costs.

3. The day-to-day trivialities of my life.
Many people use blogs as their personal space to publish the varying events of their life. You will not find that here. I want a place to discuss political, economic, and social issues in an intelligent manner and I will not insult you by presuming that you are interested in me or my personal experiences.