Category Archives: Miscellany

Cool interchanges and great movies

Here’s a cool Politico piece featuring aerial photos of some of the world’s largest highway interchanges. I hoped to find the Springfield Interchange on this list—one of the highlights of my otherwise-boring morning commute—but to no avail. It serves about 430,000 cars per day, which I guess isn’t enough to earn a spot on this list. I can’t find a list of the world’s largest highway interchanges. Can you?

The Springfield Interchange in Springfield, VA. I drive on this almost every day.

The Springfield Interchange in Springfield, VA. I drive on this almost every day.

On a totally unrelated note, here’s a cool list from someone on Reddit of the 250 Greatest Films of All Time. I’ve looked for a list like this before, but I never found anything definitive. Most of them seemed skewed toward modern movies. Some of them definitely over-weighted old movies. But this list seems pretty fair. It aggregates various reviews from IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Letterboxd, accounts for the general population’s ignorance of older films, and even discounts reviews of brand new movies that always fall in ratings over the years.

I’ve seen exactly 36 of these movies (14.4%), a handful of which are animated movies I saw as a child. That should show you how little my adult self enjoys watching movies. I average about one per month, and I usually regret that one about halfway through.

Within limits

From Ludwig von Mises:

Science does not give us absolute and final certainty. It only gives us assurance within the limits of our mental abilities and the prevailing state of scientific thought. A scientific system is but one station in an endlessly progressing search for knowledge. It is necessarily affected by the insufficiency inherent in every human effort. But to acknowledge these facts does not mean the present-day economics is backward. It merely means that economics is a living thing–and to live implies both imperfection and change.

Can climate change be good?

Dr. Ivar Giaever has the same thought I’ve had for years.

What is the optimum temperature for the earth? Is that the temperature we have right now? That would be a miracle! Maybe it’s two degrees warmer. Two degrees colder. But no one has told me what the optimum temperature is for the whole earth.

Climate change poses a threat to some of our present-day lifestyle. But is it altogether bad, on net? Is it not even possible that climate change could make life easier for many humans?

As far as I understand, some climate change models have cities like New York and Miami underwater if warming continues its course for the next 100 years. That doesn’t sound good. But what happens to the rest of the earth? Do we gain billions of acres of arable land, once too cold to support life? Will droughts become less frequent and less severe?

I have no idea how to answer my question. But if we could derive an optimum temperature for the earth, based on maximizing the amount of arable land, minimizing drought and extreme weather activity in populated areas, etc., might that temperature be outside the range climate change alarmists believe we must maintain, even at the cost of expensive carbon taxes and slowed industrial development?

I’m not convinced. Any serious discussion of climate change ought to talk about why global warming is bad—not take that idea for granted. Maybe such talk is about there, but I don’t see it from popular commentators except insofar as they paint scary pictures of flooding coastal cities and stronger hurricanes. That doesn’t sound good, but what happens to the world on net? What happens, if you will, to the human race’s prospects for long-term survival (if you like thinking in such terms…I don’t)? Is it possible that things will improve in this regard?

Let’s first establish exactly why climate change is bad, then talk about whether it’s worth fighting. Because neither of those goes without saying.

Why Mises admired Freud

An interesting little note from Jeffrey Tucker in The Freeman:

It makes sense if you think about it. Mises was the great champion of subjectivist economic theory, with its radical observation that the whole shape of the world of economics is ultimately traceable to values residing in human minds. Freud did the same for the discipline of medicine and therapy. They both went beyond materialism to find explanatory power in how and what we think. Both highlighted the awesome power of the inner life of the individual mind.

Musings on innovation

Musings on innovation from Mark P. Mills:

It’s not that disruption (possibly the second most over-used tech word, after “awesome”) isn’t wired into Silicon Valley’s ecosystem. But foundational economic and social transformations don’t come from making products to compete with cab or power companies; they come from basic research that radically advances our understanding of—and thus derivatively, our ability to manipulate and literally engineer—nature’s underlying laws and materials. The apotheosis of such progress is the domain of the Nobel Prizes.

It is time for today’s tech giants to expand their vision in a way that would win a few Nobels. They need to step up, be bold, and make history by launching a major initiative to invest in basic science. This is a critical time. America has exhausted the extant model, dating back to World War II, for funding basic research. Our overall spending on basic research has been declining, a fact highlighted by the broad coalition of universities and researchers that has launched The Innovation Deficit project.

Motivational Mises

From Human Action:

He who only wishes and hopes does not interfere actively with the course of events and with the shaping of his own destiny. But acting man chooses, determines, and tries to reach an end.

Are you an acting man?

(Yes, yes, I know Mises’ point is that we are all “acting men.” By our very nature, and the fact of our consciousness, we act. But I mean it in a less literal way: Are you a wisher or a doer?)

The gay marriage decision is a good thing for libertarians (and even Christians)

Steve Horwitz (via Facebook) speaks my mind more eloquently than I ever could regarding the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision. In short, here’s why legalized gay marriage is a good thing for proponents of small government, and even for religious people who don’t endorse homosexual relationships. It’s not the state’s job, anyways!

What follows, then, is that we can and should view this decision in light of whether it promotes a healthier view of marriage — one defined not by legal status, but by private and/or religious convictions — in the long run, without worrying about marriage being “redefined” here and now.

Here’s Horwitz:

It may well be that the expansion of state-granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, and perhaps to groups of more than two down the road, leads to people being willing to more radically re-think the whole nature of marriage and its relationship with the state. That may have the effect of generating more creative thinking about how a more private institution of marriage might emerge in a world where the state continues to do the things it does. At the same time, libertarians might be better off focusing on figuring out how to offer alternatives to the government programs that are deeply entwined with marital status so that those programs can be eliminated. Such alternatives could reduce the costs of separating marriage from the state.

For example, doing more to promote a libertarian anti-poverty agenda as an alternative to the harmful ways in which the welfare state undermines marriage as an institution, while simultaneously depending on its definition, would perhaps be a better long-run strategy for separating marriage from the state than focusing on that specific goal right now.

…and then receive it back.

From John Steinbeck’s East of Eden—a book I’m trying, for the fourth time, to read through to the end.

It wasn’t very long until all the land in the barren hills near King City and San Ardo was taken up, and ragged families were scattered through the hills, trying their best to scratch a living from the thin flinty soil. They and the coyotes lived clever, despairing, submarginal lives. They landed with no money, no equipment, no tools, no credit, and particularly with no knowledge of the new country and no technique for using it. I don’t know whether it was a divine stupidity or a great faith that let them do it. Surely such venture is nearly gone from the world. And the families did survive and grow. They had a tool or a weapon that is also nearly gone, or perhaps it is only dormant for a while. It is argued that because they believed thoroughly in a just, moral God they could put their faith there and let the smaller securities take care of themselves. But I think that because they knew beyond doubt that they were valuable and potentially moral units—because of this they could give God their own courage and dignity and then receive it back. Such things have disappeared perhaps because men do not trust themselves anymore, and when that happens there is nothing left except perhaps to find some strong sure man, even though he may be wrong, and to dangle from his coattails.

Why I haven’t been writing

Again, I haven’t written here lately. I’ve been writing a little more elsewhere, though. I have an article coming out on Enhancing Capital sometime this week. My journal is also a little fuller than it was a few days ago.

I was right last time I posted here—I am settling into somewhat of a routine, now that I’ve got the first six weeks of a new job behind me. But oddly, that routine doesn’t involve quite as much writing as it used to, and that’s not because I don’t have the time. Frankly, I don’t really know what to write about anymore.

Part of me thinks this has something to do with the quantitative nature of my day-time work. I’m a research analyst for a market research firm. I study survey results from every which angle, looking for interesting trends to show our clients. This isn’t complex math by any means, but the reasoning I’m doing certainly falls on the left side of the brain (if you believe in that sort of thing).

Because of this, I think, I’ve been noticing order in things—road patterns, architecture, ways of speaking—that I didn’t notice before. Music is especially interesting these days. I’m a little better now at keeping rhythm while playing, and I’m noticing more of the complexities in rhythms in songs on the radio. I’m adding up daily expenses in my head. Weird little things like that—things that don’t leave much time for the types of political/economic/financial considerations that usually make the muse for what I post on this blog.

This isn’t like some uncontrollable impulse. This doesn’t happen all day, every day. Just every so often, I find myself thinking about how things are ordered and arranged where I used to think about what things mean (in a philosophical sense). But I guess order itself is something worth considering philosophically—order is heaven’s first law, after all.

I’m also taking a somewhat advanced microeconomics/game theory class right now. And graduate-level econometrics. And macroeconomics. Maybe those are more to blame. And the fact that I come home super-tired at 11 o’clock most days.

Or maybe this all has nothing to do with it. It sounds silly reading it over. Either way, I haven’t had much inspiration to write lately. My classes will be done for the summer after next week, so perhaps things will change then. Who knows. I’m happy either way. I do hope to write more one day—I’d love to write for a living. But until then, I’m more than pleased to keep at my daily grind. My job is intellectually stimulating and engaging, which is more than most can say. I ought to be thankful, and I am.

Oh…one more thing. I said in an earlier post that I have been working on a website whose name would soon be announced on this blog. Here it is: Vaycae.com.

I didn’t create this from the ground, up. I did brand it, though, and come up with the logo and marketing materials. The URL was my find, too. I’m really not sure what my goal with this site is—to get bookings, yes, but I’m not sure why. For now, though, I’m trying to market on social media and see how far I can get without paying for advertising. So be a pal and forward this to your friends? I’d appreciate it. I promise all prices are as good as you’ll find on Expedia, and probably anywhere else on the web. And everything is totally secure…I had some professionals tell me so.

Explaining my absence

I haven’t written much lately. Actually, I haven’t written at all lately.

That’s because I’ve been busy, and I don’t like throwing junk up on this blog just to say I posted. Believe it not, I put thought into what I write here.

But I must diverge from my normal run of economic/financial/political/whatever-interests-me commentary and give a brief personal update, because I’ve been crazy (though not overwhelmingly) busy.

I started a job last month. I work at a market research firm in Arlington, VA doing B2B survey analysis. I love it so far.

When my wife and I first moved back to the D.C. area last fall, I didn’t plan to be working while taking classes. After the fall semester, though, I decided I just didn’t have enough to do. Frankly, school isn’t all that hard. I had a great undergraduate training in economics at Grove City College that I think gives me a little edge over my classmates. I can’t say I’m at the top of my class, but I definitely don’t need to study as hard as everyone else. I’m learning tons, though–more than I even expected coming in to the program.

On top of all that, I’ve also been working on a website. I’ll reveal the name soon. It’s taken me quite a while to get up and running (is two months a long time?), but it’s definitely going to pay off. I can feel it!

That’s it. I finally feel like I’ve settled into something of a routine at work, so hopefully I’ll have time to read and blog more in the coming weeks. In the meantime, here’s an interesting post from Bryan Caplan that relates, even if rather obtusely, to something I wrote here a while back.

My new piece, and a pet peeve

I have a new piece out at Enhancing Capital. Topic is booming stock markets and how to explain record-highs.

On a related note, one thing that’s frustrated me lately is people’s willingness to ignore good news when it comes from the “wrong” source. Booming financial markets, for example, are happening. Perhaps you think the recovery is all “phony” or whatever, but that doesn’t change the fact that stocks have performed remarkably well over the past five years. Those who insist this is all a facade and refuse to buy in are only hurting themselves.

“But the country just can’t be doing well as long as Obama is in office, right? I mean, he’s got all the wrong ideas! He’s “fundamentally changing” (or whatever) the United States!”

Again, even if that is true, it doesn’t mean we haven’t had six years of strong recovery, or that major economic indicators aren’t looking better and better with each passing quarter. Good things can happen even with the “wrong” people in power.

Don’t let your politics get in the way of your financial success. You can still criticize Obama and the actions of economic/monetary policymakers while taking advantage of the booming stock market. And yes, you can even believe things are worse than they would be if policymakers had taken another path while still believing that markets are strong.

Same goes for your personal life. Don’t ignore good ideas coming from people you don’t like, or from people who’ve had only bad ideas in the past. And don’t let the source of your information determine how you are going to use it. Weigh everything on its own merits and look out for your own interests. Don’t waste your energies spiting others or refusing to grant legitimacy to an idea you had rejected in the past. Rise above all that. You’ll be better off for it.

Helen Keller on optimism

The test of all beliefs is their practical effect in life. It be true that optimism compels the world forward, and pessimism retards it, them it is dangerous to propagate a pessimistic philosophy. One who believes that the pain in the world outweighs the joy, and expresses that unhappy conviction, only adds to the pain. … Life is a fair field, and the right will prosper if we stand by our guns.

Let pessimism once take hold of the mind, and life is all topsy-turvy, all vanity and vexation of spirit. … If I regarded my life from the point of view of the pessimist, I should be undone. I should seek in vain for the light that does not visit my eyes and the music that does not ring in my ears. I should beg night and day and never be satisfied. I should sit apart in awful solitude, a prey to fear and despair. But since I consider it a duty to myself and to others to be happy, I escape a misery worse than any physical deprivation.

Dissecting property rights

Think about property rights.

Take this computer, for example. I’m assuming it’s yours. You own this computer. It would be wrong for someone to take it from you without your consent. You have the right to do whatever you want with it—destroy it, even.

Now think about your car. You own that car. It’s yours to keep until you don’t want it anymore, and nobody can take it from you without your permission. Same goes with your house, your dog, your lawnmower, your personal library.

But think too deeply about property rights, and you’ll realize things aren’t as clear cut as I’ve just made them out to be. For example, I’ve listed only material goods thus far. It’s easy to imagine when rights to ownership in material property is violated. But what about non-material property, like trademarks and slogans?

Coca-cola, for example, owns the word “Coca-Cola.” It’s a different type of ownership, though, because others are allowed to use the word as often as they want. I, for one, say it all the time. I’m even writing it here. COCA-COLA.

Have I violated Coca-Cola’s property rights? I don’t think so, but I’m actually not sure. If I have, who exactly have I harmed? To whom does the word “Coca-Cola” belong? John Pemberton came up with the name sometime in the late 19th century, but he’s not alive anymore. Technically the word belongs to The Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta, GA, so I’ve violated the company’s rights to the word. But people at this company come and go. It’s probably the case that no one works there today who worked there 50 years ago. The company, then, exists independent of the people who work there, which means the rights belong to an inanimate, non-living thing. What other property rights can inanimate, non-living things hold?

Another area where property rights get confusing is with regard to how ownership begins. When John Cabot claimed all of North America for England in 1496, did all of North American belong to England? I think most would say no. But what if he laid claim to a small, uninhabited island off the coast of Maine—would that be ok? I think most would say yes, as long as the island had truly never been inhabited before. First come, first serve, right?

There’s another gray area—first come, first serve. Imagine a pile of cash on the sidewalk left by someone as a gift to passersby. Say there’s a sign on the pile indicating that the gift belongs to whoever finds it and wants it. Both my neighbor finds the pile and calls me to come look at it. I grab it and take it for myself. Is it “rightfully” mine, as in no one is allowed to take it from me? He saw it first, but I grabbed it first. Who has the better claim, if any claim at all? Perhaps the city, who owns the sidewalk on which the cash was placed.

These are hypothetical situations, of course, but analogous situations are happening all the time in the realm of intellectual and digital property. These are serious issues with real-life implications.

My point here is to show that property rights aren’t very black-and-white, and that we should be careful when tinkering with them. Rights to intellectual property, digital property, privacy, and even material goods are fragile things. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how to divvy these things up. So take care when talking and thinking about property, and do what you can to further this dialogue in a helpful way—a way that recognizes both the undeniable importance of property rights to sustaining a rational market order and the gray areas inherent in the very notion of property.

Doubting science

In the U.S., climate change somehow has become a litmus test that identifies you as belonging to one or the other of these two antagonistic tribes. When we argue about it, Kahan says, we’re actually arguing about who we are, what our crowd is. We’re thinking, People like us believe this. People like that do not believe this. For a hierarchical individualist, Kahan says, it’s not irrational to reject established climate science: Accepting it wouldn’t change the world, but it might get him thrown out of his tribe.–Joel Achenbach, “Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?”