Social networks are public!

I'm finding I get a kick out of twitter. Mostly due to who I follow, not so much what I post, although I'm learning how to add value to all the noise.

What's funny is how some people don't understand that twitter is public. Really. Think before you post.

I know I've tried to be very careful about identification. I don't hide who I am, so if my boss wants to find me in the interweb, he can. But when discussing politics, or, frankly, any controversial issue, I keep it clear that it's MY personal comments, that no way reflect my employer. I don't identify my employer on twitter or on my blog (although if you look hard enough, you can find out).

I know my boss can see my Facebook page, and I've got a website where the URL is my name. I'm not going to trash my company, make them look bad, or discuss anything I don't want them to know on any internet medium other than secure email.

Seriously. How can anyone not get this?

Link via problogger on twitter.

Rain Tomorrow

A quick read on the decline in clarity of business writing.

I work for a big corporation, and I see evidence of this every day. Not only are kids rewarded for using lots of words, we are rewarded in the workplace for using more words (and bigger words) than required, and certainly for using buzzwords.

"Speak to" drives me nuts.

Self fulfilling..

Talking us into a depression at Coyote Blog. Interesting employment stat included.

To add some anectdotal evidence: I deal with a couple of small business owners on a regular basis, as well as some very large organizations. All of them are having trouble hiring.

That's right.

Seocnd hand, through them, I'm hearing an awful lot about people cutting back and slowing growth in anticipation of poor results. Business is fine, but they are cutting back anyway.

I think all this doom and gloom talk might have something to do with that behavior.

Hair of the dog

I agree with and liked this explanation on why government spending won't get us out of a recession.

One could make the argument that the money pumped into the economy won't come from bread baked today and taken from the baker, but is instead from bread baked in the future, and that in the future, there will be such economic growth that the baker will have lots of excess bread.

But isn't that (spending now what we will have to pay off in the future) what got us into this mess?

When the Messiah comes to town, traffic's gonna be a bitch

Baltimore Sun story on the expected travel nightmare on Jan 20 for the swearing in of The One.

The expectation is traffic will be screwed up all the way to Baltimore.

Why can't all these people stay home and watch it on TV? Why do you have to be there?

Why isn't anyone listening to me?

I said:

BE COOL

Timely

An article written by Rothbard in 1969, that everyone should read today.

There are, however, some critical problems in the assumption that the market economy is the culprit. For "general economic theory" teaches us that supply and demand always tend to be in equilibrium in the market and that therefore prices of products as well as of the factors that contribute to production are always tending toward some equilibrium point. Even though changes of data, which are always taking place, prevent equilibrium from ever being reached, there is nothing in the general theory of the market system that would account for regular and recurring boom-and-bust phases of the business cycle. Modern economists "solve" this problem by simply keeping their general price and market theory and their business cycle theory in separate, tightly-sealed compartments, with never the twain meeting, much less integrated with each other. Economists, unfortunately, have forgotten that there is only one economy and therefore only one integrated economic theory. Neither economic life nor the structure of theory can or should be in watertight compartments; our knowledge of the economy is either one integrated whole or it is nothing. Yet most economists are content to apply totally separate and, indeed, mutually exclusive, theories for general price analysis and for business cycles. They cannot be genuine economic scientists so long as they are content to keep operating in this primitive way.

But there are still graver problems with the currently fashionable approach. Economists also do not see one particularly critical problem because they do not bother to square their business cycle and general price theories: the peculiar breakdown of the entrepreneurial function at times of economic crisis and depression. In the market economy, one of the most vital functions of the businessman is to be an "entrepreneur," a man who invests in productive methods, who buys equipment and hires labor to produce something which he is not sure will reap him any return. In short, the entrepreneurial function is the function of forecasting the uncertain future. Before embarking on any investment or line of production, the entrepreneur, or "enterpriser," must estimate present and future costs and future revenues and therefore estimate whether and how much profits he will earn from the investment. If he forecasts well and significantly better than his business competitors, he will reap profits from his investment. The better his forecasting, the higher the profits he will earn. If, on the other hand, he is a poor forecaster and overestimates the demand for his product, he will suffer losses and pretty soon be forced out of the business.

The market economy, then, is a profit-and-loss economy, in which the acumen and ability of business entrepreneurs is gauged by the profits and losses they reap. The market economy, moreover, contains a built-in mechanism, a kind of natural selection, that ensures the survival and the flourishing of the superior forecaster and the weeding-out of the inferior ones. For the more profits reaped by the better forecasters, the greater become their business responsibilities, and the more they will have available to invest in the productive system. On the other hand, a few years of making losses will drive the poorer forecasters and entrepreneurs out of business altogether and push them into the ranks of salaried employees.

If, then, the market economy has a built-in natural selection mechanism for good entrepreneurs, this means that, generally, we would expect not many business firms to be making losses. And, in fact, if we look around at the economy on an average day or year, we will find that losses are not very widespread. But, in that case, the odd fact that needs explaining is this: How is it that, periodically, in times of the onset of recessions and especially in steep depressions, the business world suddenly experiences a massive cluster of severe losses? A moment arrives when business firms, previously highly astute entrepreneurs in their ability to make profits and avoid losses, suddenly and dismayingly find themselves, almost all of them, suffering severe and unaccountable losses? How come? Here is a momentous fact that any theory of depressions must explain. An explanation such as "underconsumption" — a drop in total consumer spending — is not sufficient, for one thing, because what needs to be explained is why businessmen, able to forecast all manner of previous economic changes and developments, proved themselves totally and catastrophically unable to forecast this alleged drop in consumer demand. Why this sudden failure in forecasting ability?

Go read the whole thing. Learn something today.

When other people say it well

Just link to them.

Unfortunately, the same isn't true for money. Its supply is determined consciously by a board. Unable to know and adjust to changes in people's demand for money - and subject always to political pressures to grease the economy with the snake oil of easy money - the Federal Reserve distorts the economy with its inevitably mistaken decisions on the supply of money. Asset bubbles are part of the price we pay for this primitive way of supplying money.

Economics is cool

They act suprised

Revenues are down after raising sales and income taxes? Really??

I wonder how that happened. Maybe, just maybe, everyone not on the tax more spend more Left was correct when they told you this would happen.

If you raise my taxes, I don't produce as much, because the incremental value of the additional production is reduced, often to the point that I choose not to produce. Likewise, increasing the sales tax increases my prices, subsequently affecting the supply and demand curves. So I buy less stuff, or I buy less expensive replacement stuff.

Maybe, just maybe, the way to get out of a fiscal problem is to quit spending so much on things that are wasteful or not in the government domain.

Over and over and over again we see these policies don't work, and over and over and over again we elect people who implement the same policies.

Um, wow

Climate skepdic posts about a remarkable example of alarmists' poor science.

The problem we have, is most people in this country have no idea just how bad it really is, because they don't have a basic understanding of physics. I just hope more people get educated via posts like this.

Understanding the basics

Shouldn't someone who writes for an investing advice website understand the basics of Macroeconomics? I think so.

Micheal Shedlock, a "Registered Investment Advisor", claims a recession is obvious based on recent unemployment numbers.

The establishment data was the 5 consecutive decline.

Highlights

34,000 construction jobs were lost
26,000 manufacturing jobs were lost
27,000 retail trade jobs were lost
29,000 professional and business services jobs were lost
8,000 service providing jobs were added
A total of 57,000 goods producing jobs were lost (higher paying jobs), and for the first time in quite some time, few service providing (generally lower paying jobs) were added. Government, the last pace one wants to see jobs, added 17,000 jobs or the service sector would have actually contracted.

Weakness is now nearly across the board. The last remaining holdouts is education and health services which added 54,000 jobs. But looking ahead there is going to be trouble in this area as states, especially California, cut back services.

These are clearly recession totals yet still we have pundits debating whether or not we are in recession.

So where is he wrong? Recession has a specific definition, and it isn't based on the number of jobs added or removed from the 'Economy'. As a matter of fact, some increase in unemployment could be linked to an upswing in productivity.

Now, this doesn't mean things are as good as they could be, but it's an inflationary issue, not a recession issue.

Don't talk to the police

via Lew Rockwell

Another example of government intervention screwing you

And another example of what "free government run healthcare" will be like.

Baltimore taxi drivers, being a reasonably ingenious sort, have figured out that sitting waiting for someone to call for a cab and going where the dispatcher tells them is more economical from a fuel usage standpoint than driving around looking for people waving their hands.

The most important passage from the article:

A fare increase might help, but taxi drivers such as Okiyi probably will have to struggle through the summer without any changes. Cab fares start at $1.80 and rise in 20-cent increments based on mileage and waiting time. A 55-cent fuel surcharge is added on top of those rates.

Baltimore's 1,000 cabs are regulated by the Maryland Public Service Commission, which evaluates twice a year whether industry costs have risen to a point where the charges can be passed on to consumers. LaWanda Edwards, a PSC spokeswoman, said the fuel surcharge has not changed since 2006, when the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline was $3.12.

Before that, the fuel surcharge was 15 cents. Any increase in the meter rate or fuel surcharge would not take effect until September, Edwards said.

No emergency surcharge in response to the present fuel price spike has been discussed, Edwards said. But the PSC evaluates the cab industry's rates every January and July, she said. Cab companies have not complained officially about their rising gasoline costs because they expect that they will have an opportunity for an adjustment after the PSC reviews the industry conditions next month, Edwards said.

In recent weeks, taxi companies in many towns and cities across the United States have asked for - and, in many cases, received - permission to increase their prices, either in the form of a fuel surcharge or an increase in meter rates.

Cab companies in Oklahoma City, St. Louis and small cities in Massachusetts and Indiana have obtained increases, according to news reports. And Chicago recently passed its first fuel surcharge for taxis, tacking on up to $1 per ride, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Meanwhile, taxi industries in Boston, Buffalo, N.Y., and Manchester, N.H., are pushing for fare increases or fuel surcharges to help get them through the fuel pinch.

"Nationwide, the industry is asking for rate relief, which means a fare increase," said Alfred LaGasse, president of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association, a national trade group that represents about 1,000 transportation companies. "It's pretty universal. It's not limited to large cities or small cities."

On Friday, Montgomery County allowed its four cab companies, which operate about 650 cabs, to institute a 90-day emergency fuel surcharge of $1.50 per trip.

Notice the word "allowed". Since taxi drivers' and companies' prices are set by the government, they must take other actions in order to sustain their business. Which means worse service for you. Instead of being able to decide to hail that cab when it starts to rain on your walk home, you'll have to call for one, and wait 20 minutes (assuming they'll send a cab to someone who called from a cell phone without an address.)

This, of course, is the best example to the layperson, but price fixing by government has a number of drawbacks, as it always limits the choice of the consumer. Want a nicer cab, and willing to pay for it? Tough. Want to get the cab faster, and pay a little extra? Tough. Want a bargain cab that's a little less comfortable? Tough again.

It's not all gas prices, you know...

While we blame high gas prices for everything, including kids not getting limos for prom, we need to keep some other stuff in mind.

Many operators have added surcharges in response to higher gasoline prices, which reached an average of $3.63 per gallon for regular unleaded in Maryland, AAA Mid-Atlantic reported yesterday. Rogers raised rates $35, bringing the cost of renting a limo to $885 for eight hours.

"The gas prices definitely are not helping us," she said. "It is working against us. We are trying not to raise the prices [again]. But the industry is suffering. It's not too far off."

Richard Kane, owner of International Limousine Service in Washington and president of the National Limousine Association, said operators suffered first-quarter losses of 10 percent to 30 percent.

Rate increases implemented in response to higher fuel costs range from 8 percent to 20 percent, Kane said.

"It is unfortunate, but we have to pass the costs on," said Kane, 38, who has tacked on a 13.5 percent surcharge.

Mike Vallard, owner of Bel Air-based Higher Quality Limousines, is among those who decided against raising prices, resigning himself to the possibility of simply breaking even. Vallard, who is president of the Maryland Limousine Association, charges $800 for six hours and $1,000 for eight hours.

First, a $35 increase to $885 is less than a 5% increase. Also, keep in mind it is harder for teens to get jobs than it used to be, due at least in part to the higher minimum wage, which primarily impacts part time and teenage workers. Also, don't forget the sales tax increase in Maryland from 5% to 6%. On that same $850 original limo rate, the increase in the sales tax is $8.50, about a quarter of the increase due to gas.

30 mile mistake

Boris says in a paragraph what takes me a page and a half.

Fun with TSA employees

is the 3 ounce rule weight or volume?

Study finds walking can get you from one place to another

The USA Today reports a study finding that a 20 to 30 minute brisk walk 3 times a week makes you feel better. Seriously, can't scientists find something a little more meaningful to study?

If you take a brisk walk for as little as 20 to 30 minutes three times a week, you'll feel more energetic, happier and calmer, says a study presented Thursday at an American Heart Association meeting in Colorado Springs.
This adds to the growing body of evidence on the benefits of even small amounts of physical activity for improving quality of life.

"Exercise makes you feel better," says Timothy Church, director of preventive medicine research at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge. The more you do, the more you benefit, he says.

Didn't we all already know this? And it was funded by your NIH. Money well spent.

Never ask a question..

When you don't know the answer.


I feel a little bad for the guy, but I've never thought the whole public engagement thing was such a good idea.

Via Agoraphilia.

I heart Economics

Drew Cary on the middle class, and how we are actually far better off than we've been in the past, regardless of what you see on the news.

With 'free markets" like this, who needs socialism?

Jeffrey Tucker on the not really free market everyone seems to blame for everything.

So, the first assumption that we live in a free-market world is simply not true. In fact, it is sheer fantasy. How is it that journalists can continually get away with asserting that the fantasy is true? How can informed writers continue to fob off on us the idea that we live in a laissez-faire world that can only be improved by just a bit of public tinkering?

The reason is that most of our daily experience in life is not with the Department of Labor or Interior or Education or Justice. It is with Home Depot, McDonald's, Kroger, and Pizza Hut. Our lives are spent dealing with the commercial sector mostly, because it is visible and accessible, whereas the depredations of the state are mostly abstract, and its destructive effects mostly unseen. We don't see the inventions left on the shelf, the products not imported due to quotas, the people not working because of minimum wage laws, etc.

Because of this, we are tempted to believe the unbelievable, namely that government serves the function only of a night watchman. And only by believing in such a fantasy can we possibly believe the second assumption, which is that the problems of our society are due the to the market economy, not to the government that has intervened in the market economy.

Consider the housing crisis. The money machine called the Federal Reserve cranks out the credit as a subsidy to the banking business, the bond dealers, and the big-spending politicians who would prefer to borrow than tax. It is this alchemic temple that distorts the reality that credit must be rationed in a way that accords with economic reality.

The Federal Reserve embarked on a wild credit ride in the late 1990s that has dumped some $4 trillion in new money via the credit markets, making expansion of the loan sector both inevitable and unsustainable. At the same time, the federal bureaus that manage and guarantee the bulk of mortgages have ballooned beyond belief. The popularity of subprime mortgages are the tip of a massive but buried debt mountain — all in the name of achieving the "American dream" of home ownership through massive government intervention.

Say what you want to about this system, but it is not the free market at work. Indeed, the very existence of central banking is contrary to the capitalist ideal, in which money would be no different from any other good: produced and supplied by the market in accord with the moral law against theft and fraud. For the government to authorize a counterfeiter-in-chief is a direct attack on the sound money system of a market economy.

Read it all. How can you say you are free in a land where the government tells you how much water you are allowed to flush? Try to come up with something, anything, in your life that isn't regulated. Well, that's not how the free market works, so it isn't working.