The Liberal Order

Why we vote. Why I will now always vote.

Here is Gordon Tullock on why he doesn't vote. He makes good sense.

 

Tullock's point is that the probability of his vote chaging the outcome of any election is so so so small, that the expected value he would obtain from his preferred candidate winning pales in comparision to the cost of going to the polls, waiting in line, becoming informed, etc. In other words, P•B<C, where P is the probability of any vote changing the outcome of an election, B is the additional benefit one receives from their candidate winning, and C is the cost incurred in voting. Why vote?

Economists and political scientists consider other factors as well, including one's obligation or duty to vote. In other words, P•B + D > C.

We now have to include one other benefit of voting: our spouse might run us over with a Jeep if we don't vote. In other words, P•B + D + Our life > C. 

That Siri Is Such A Jokester

ME: What is the meaning of life?

Sire: Let me get back to you on that. I will write a very long play in which nothing happens.

What a card, that Siri.

The Hilarity of the Greens

Mike Munger at KPC slams (in honorable fashion) a post by a greenie with ideas for reducing your carbon footprint. (Munger thinks the post is satire; I don't.)

This idea was more hilarious than the one Munger ridicules.

Euthanize Your Old Pet

Pets have become a common feature in most homes and are an attribute of the modern, Western lifestyle.  We all love our dogs and cats, but really, when you think about it, pets are a major producer of excess carbon.  One of the best ways to reasonably enjoy your pet and reduce your overall Carbon Footprint is to determine in advance how long your pet should live.  As a family, set a date when your pet will be euthanized.  One great way to teach children the value of pet euthanasia is to turn the occasion into a family celebration.  Let's say you've set March 10, five years from now, as your pet's euthanasia date.   For the next five years, celebrate March 10 as your pet's special day, with a family party and perhaps a visit to your pet's future burial spot.  Teach your children to think of the occasion as a birthday in reverse.  A predetermined euthanasia date will encourage your family to love and care for your furry friend while it's still young and playful.  What's more, pre-planing for pet termination not only works towards reducing your family's Carbon Footprint, but guarantees long term reduction in veterinary expenses.

What a wonderful idea. "Kids, one more month with old Sparky and then the dog gets it. Be happy!" 

Actually, we have two cats and I've contemplated this idea on a regular basis. But not for reducing my carbon footprint.

UPDATE: The fine print at the bottom of the GreenTremayne.com page notes that it is totally satirical. 

Louis C.K. Attempts to Cut Out Ticket Scalpers to His Show

Comedian Louis C.K. wants to share more of the gains from trade with his fans and not middlemen, so he's trying to cut out scalpers and ticketing agents that charge outrageous fees. 

C.K. will sell tickets exclusively on his website for a flat $45 rate.

According to C.K., making shows affordable has always been a goal of his. However, like many events today, fans are faced with re-sellers inflating the ticket prices through surcharges and handling fees.

“Some ticketing services charge more than 40 percent, and ironically, the lower I’ve made my ticket prices, the more scalpers have bought them up — so the more fans have paid for a lot of my tickets,” C.K. explains in a press release.

I admire him and hope it works well, though I think he'll find it difficult, if not impossible, to police and enforce.

Come back to Raleigh, Mr. C.K. (assuming C.K. really is your last name).

Advertising when the Google car comes by.

A very funny - though grossly under-appreciated - movie was Dick, released to limited success in 1999. It spoofed the Watergate scandal, making it of little interest to younger people. But it starred Kirsten Dunst, Michelle Williams, Will Ferrell and that other guy, making it unappealing to older people who thought it too juvenile and a movie geared for a younger crowd. 

Essentially, Betsy Jobs and Arlene Lorenzo (played by Dunst and Williams, respectively) befriend Nixon and become his official dog walker. They soon discover the ways of "Tricky Dick" and turn against him. During the final scene, Jobs and Lorenzo decide to show Dick Nixon what they think about him by flying a banner from the rooftop of Jobs' Georgetown home just as Nixon passes overhead on his way out of office. The banner read, "You suck, D***." (Notice the placement of the comma.)(It shows up about the 1:53 mark in the trailer below.)

It appears that we may see more of this kind of activity thanks to Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). You see, Google and Apple are racing to become the leader in 3-D navigation maps for PCs and handheld devices. In doing so, the two companies, especially Google, plan to drive and fly by areas they are mapping, as well as using sharply focused satellite imaging. And in doing this, they are apparently catching people unaware.

Schumer's great idea is, along with a few other things, to make Google and Apple advertise when and where they will be imaging a specific location.

All right, maybe a nice effort to prevent me from being photographed in my pajamas while retreiving the morning paper and ultimately to protect individual privacy. I'm on board with Schumer on that count. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence is to create the incentive for morons hoping to make it into Google Maps naked or making obscene gestures or flying banners that say, "You suck, Chuck." (Wow, this doesn't have the same comedic appeal.) 

 

Learning Economics Through Bank Robberies

Via Craig Newmark comes this interesting article about bank robberies. It offers great examples for learning economics, business and finance.

What's the marginal revenue product of an accomplice if you want to rob a bank?

According to the study, for each additional person involved in a bank robbery, the criminals can expect to add about $14,000 to their take.

And this is largely due to gains from specialization:

"It is advantageous to divide tasks—monitoring the bank lobby, accompanying staff to vaults to ensure maximum takings, driving the getaway car and so on," they write. "In short, it may be more professional, and the larger returns may reflect that."

Find underserved markets and exploit them:

In 2006, the average bank robbery netted about $4,330, compared to an average of $1,589 for all commercial robberies. Avoid convenience stores—the average take there is just $769.

The most lucrative target? Armored cars.

You learn about expected loss and cost-benefit analysis.

[B]anks with fast-rising security screens that block off tellers from would-be-bank-robbers seem to help,according to the study. They severely reduce the likelihood of a large windfall.

But with most robbers taking a mere pittance and bank robberies being a relatively rare crime (there are more than 6,000 commercial banks in the United States and thousands more credit unions), it's barely worth it for banks to invest in the screens, which cost a couple thousand per teller window to install.

In other words, P•L < C. The expected loss from a bank robbery (i.e., probability of my bank getting robbed times the loss if it happens) is less than the cost of installing security screens. Though it is understood that the emotional toll from a robbery is high on bank employees and customers.

A credible threat is important:

In England, bank robbers who threatened employees and customers with a gun stole, on average, about $16,000 more than robbers who were unarmed.

But that increases the risk of retaliation:

Of course, showing off a gun raises the risks as well—armed robbery almost always comes with a minimum jail sentence and makes things more dangerous.

According to the FBI, in 2010, 16 people were killed during bank robberies—13 of them were the perpetrator.

This means that there could be a kill-kill equilibrium.

 

"Huge Kids Sale"

A sign down the street.

I guess if you're trying to sell some huge kids this sign is appropriate.

But if what you're trying to do is bring people's attention to a sale of items for kids, then this is the appropriate sign.

Here is an example of a misplaced apostrophe.

Obama, Clooney and Time Magazine: Are You Nanny Enough?

clooney obama+time pics on Sodahead

Do as I say, not as I do.

In a story about something that actually occurs more often than you would think, a woman responds to the question of whether she would stop to steal (yes, it is stealing) money on the highway dropped from an armored car.

"Of course I would," she said. "If the armored car had been in an accident of something, I'd make sure the drivers were OK and I'd call 911. But I'd put as much money in my pockets (as I could) and run."

Obviously the woman has questionable morals. "Questionable" because maybe she's not familar with Kant's categorial imperative, but she does seem to have it at least partially in mind when she makes the following statement:

But what if her kids were there? "I absolutely would not take any money," she answered again without hesitation. "I wouldn't want them to get the message that grabbing money that is not yours is the right thing to do." 

Another guy later in the article notes:

[H]e would get out to pick up the cash, with a few conditions. If he had kids and they were in the car, he wouldn't do it. He also wouldn't risk his safety.

Parents, kids learn by your actions, not by your words. They are fully aware of hypocrisy when they see it, especially when they can pin it on their parents. 

Your pop caught you smokin' and he said, "No way!"

That hypocrite smokes two packs a day.

Lastly, this comment from a different clown:

Another kind of karma occurred to Dennis Lowe, 30, of Providence, R.I. He said it's simple human nature, especially if the money is from an armored truck. He said plenty of Americans are fed up with banks, insurance companies and other corporations that move cash in armored trucks.

"The money is insured," he said while waiting downtown for a bus. "They've been taking money from me, so it's just karma."

First, that money stolen is paid for by the rest of us in the form of reduced stock returns in our retirement portfolios, lower wages, or increased prices.

Second, in a world of specialization and voluntary exchange, how have banks, insurance companies and corporations taken money from Mr. Lowe without his willing consent? Oh I know of one all-too-common way, a way that maybe, just maybe, legitimizes stealing from the government. (I disagree with this too, but can see how people legitimize it.) But don't blame companies for getting rich by enriching you. 

BTW - Speaking of armored car mishaps, watch this humorous documentary of a Loomis Fargo theft in Charlotte, NC in 1997. 

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?

 

HT: Steven C.