Posts Tagged With: Opinions

Free Trade & Sports

The idea of protectionism, when applied to a sport like baseball or basketball, is ridiculous. Say the NBA suddenly decided to limit the number of foreign players that could be drafted to four players in the upcoming draft. In the name of "protecting" American players at home. Arguments are made by American players - "they're taking our jobs," "American talent isn't as developed as foreign talent so we need quotas," or my favorite, "Foreign players are better than we are and they will play for less money than we will." This idea is ridiculous - when Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, or Steve Nash play games, the quality of play is better and tickets are cheaper. More fans (I think) would be willing to go see a better quality game, too.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Election 2008

Are any of the presidential candidates committed to reducing the size of government? We have Democrats, who enjoy increasing the size of government, and we have Republicans, who enjoy talking about limited government and "starve-the-beast," but who have presided over bigger budget increases than Bill Clinton. All we need are more promises to make government bigger.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Wikipedia

Middlebury College recently made headlines for banning the use of Wikipedia as a citation for a paper. I don't understand why this is even headline-worthy. There is no way you can cite Wikipedia, as this article should make clear. If I was grading papers and someone cited Wikipedia, I would laugh and then give it an F. Even better, if I was the professor I'd assign an essay on a topic, then go to the Wikipedia article and plant deliberate misinformation.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Income Inequality

A lot of debate recently has been focused on the growing income gap in the United States. I am not that peeved by income inequality. Incomes at the top will rise as economies grow and companies become truly global. I am far more concerned if the equality pie is not helping the bottom 10% at all. In my opinion, better to earn 10,000 if the top is earning 1,000,000 than to earn 4,000 if the top is earning 15,000. There's more for everyone to go around, even if the slice is smaller. I would measure economic progress by how much the income of the bottom 10% is rising. However, recent research suggests people might not be happier in the more-for-everyone scenario. Steven Pinker had a great quote in the book How the Mind Works: A society can be fair, free or equal, but not all three. Income inequality strikes at the balance between being fair and being equal. I would propose taxing death more heavily so that funds cannot be easily transferred from one generation to the next. This could help make the country a better meritocracy.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Global Warming

There are two issues here that come in separate yes or no votes: 1) The Earth is getting warmer. 2) Humans are causing the earth to get warmer. I don't know if anyone denies anymore that the Earth is getting warmer. Whether or not this is because of humans is still subject to (some) debate. The most credible refutation of 2) I've heard so far is that the earth is getting warmer because of a warm period that comes roughly every 3000 years. So be it. In 100 years, as I understand it, half of Bangladesh and most of Manhattan will be underwater, human causes or not. This requires action. Send scientists to the Netherlands, do whatever you have to. The Earth is warming, human cause or not. We need to start building dams or enacting cooling measures fast. My own opinion is that it might be too large a coincidence the Earth started warming around the time of the Industrial Revolution. It's better to prepare for global warming and be wrong than assume it's all a big hoax and watch millions drown in low-elevation areas.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Class Debate – Drug Legalization

"Ladies and gentlemen, legalization of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin may at first glance feel uncomfortable. It may seem like a dangerous and unsafe policy. The affirmation today will show that the opposite is the case: banning these drugs is the unsafe policy. Because the drug market is illegal, we cannot control or regulate who plays and by what rules. Legalization of hard drugs will eliminate the obscene profits organized crime rackets make from importing and selling cocaine and heroin. It will rid our streets of much of the drug-related crime that plagues our impoverished neighborhoods. Furthermore, it will help reduce budget deficits and prison overcrowding. The affirmation would like to legalize possession of recreational amounts of Schedule Two drugs like cocaine, heroin, and LSD. To keep corporations and their greed for profits away from these addictive substances, government will Purchase, Regulate, Tax, and Distribute these drugs, similar to the way medical marijuana is distributed now. No drugs will be sold to pregnant women or to persons under 21 years of age. Our current policy is to ban these drugs and imprison anyone who sells or uses them. This War on Drugs, despite costing the taxpayer nearly $40 billion a year, has had a negligible effect on consumption and sale of hard drugs. Our inner cities are full of people selling and using these substances. It is time for government to wake up. Thank you.” Ladies and gentlemen, the Prohibition era of American history was expected to reduce crime and corruption, reduce the number of alcoholics, reduce the number of prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and safety. When Congress banned the sale of alcohol, evangelist Billy Sunday gathered ten thousand people together and proclaimed, "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be only a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and comcribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile, and the children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent." Unfortunately, Prohibition increased consumption of alcohol, marked the beginning of organized crime, pushed prison systems past their capacities, and deprived the government of a source of revenue. These problems did not go away with the end of Prohibition; they are still here, because of our bans on various other drugs. Addicts commit half of all street crimes today. The Mafia and other organized crime rackets make huge sums from importing and selling cocaine and heroin to addicts. Turf wars erupt over profitable street corners. We ignore, imprison, and impoverish addicts, the people that need our help the most. Legalization would eliminate turf wars and the incentive for crime bosses to import drugs. Government regulation and taxation would make consumption safer for users - remember 35% of new AIDS cases come from illegal drugs. What's more, we could spend the $40 billion we're now spending in a drug war on antipoverty and rehabilitation measures. Yes, legalization might increase the number of addicts, but this is not a clear cut conclusion. And if adults want to become addicts, we don't have the right to stop them. As Milton Friedman said, "Reason with the potential addict, yes. Tell him the consequences, yes. Pray for and with him, yes. But we have no right to use force, directly or indirectly, to prevent a fellow man from committing suicide, let alone from drinking alcohol or taking drugs." Our attempts to plan society in the 1920's had miserable consequences, and our attempts now have been about as successful as the Soviet Union. While legalization may be uncomfortable to some, it creates a better situation for the addict, and makes society better off. It is by far the best policy option. Thank you for your time.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

Exploratory Committee

Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas, today launched an exploratory committee to advise him on the feasibility of a 2008 presidential run. This adds him to a field of candidates including Tom Vilsack, Sam Brownback, Hillary Clinton, and (presumably) Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. I'd like to see the exploratory committee convene, look at the race, and then say, "You know, Mr. (insert name here), no one really likes you and you'd be lucky to even score a debate with the other candidates. We really don't feel you should run for office." I don't care, I'm voting for Al Gore.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.

What I Want in a Phone

I've had my old, simple phone for two-plus years now, and Verizon's telling me I need a new one. Fair enough. I started looking at phones and realized that Verizon is focusing its product specs in all the wrong areas. I don't care how nice the camera is, or how many MBs of music it can play, or what things I can buy online for it. These are the things I want to know about a phone: Can I put it on silent mode without it making a sound? How many button presses to turn on/off the ringer? How many button presses to send a text message? How many button presses to look up someone in the phone book? How big are the buttons? How big is the screen? If I try to make a call will I have service? (To its credit, Verizon usually has a signal) How navigable is the menu? How many recent calls will it store? Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, LG, and whoever else makes phones, this is the Apple approach. Design phones with the user in mind and you'll reap the benefits. Maybe not immediate fiscal benefits, but rewards in terms of user loyalty.

Liked what you read? I am available for hire.