Written Documetns

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tyJjW-eUAwEilcetxfJLNLOAM2FeRvIDJZDKNvlbwZI/edit

High Tide Haiku

Tempest hits your isle
Closed ears to men in lab coats
Ignorance is Bliss

God’s plan with his might
Your bed time story at night
Victor Frankl’s right

If there’s meaning in
Life, there’s meaning in suff’ring
Victor Frankl’s line

Tinder and Mate Values

Gone are the days of courting women you met at church or at the park. Today, the college scene, parties, and online sites are where I see my friends gravitating towards to meet partners. Tinder, an application for smartphones, is just the newest advent.

I wonder, why would people with extremely low superficial values use an app like Tinder? Would a Tinder user not reject any potential dialect upon seeing someone who reflects an abomination?   Would someone considered to be in the 99th percentile not find more productive means to find a life partner?   I cannot imagine coming across an Aphrodite on Tinder

If we assume that beauty has a standard normal distribution then the extremes one standard deviation from the mean contains 68% of the population, two standard deviations contains 95% of the population, and three deviations contains 99% of the population.

Common sense tells us that the vast majority of Tinder users come from withing one standard deviation. This probability is further reinforced by my theory that it would be counter productive for anyone in the extremities of the distribution to use the Tinder. For those who are in the lower extreme of a beauty distribution, I believe your best chances of finding a significant other is by letting them get to know you, and showing off other traits that attribute to your mate value.

What I mean by “mate value” is the aggregate value of the desirable traits you look for when looking to date, love, or marry. Such traits include beauty, human capital(intelligence), wealth, income potential, etc. It is not just sex appeal. If you’re funny, exploit that strength. If you’re brilliant, again, show it off!  If you are in the high extremes, I don’t have any advice for you and you probably wouldn’t need it. For those of use who are single, lowering your standards will go a long way, at least that’s what my economic training suggests.

Economic’s Insight into the Age-Old Argument of Waffles or Pancakes

Last night my best friend and biological brother argued that Waffle House and its waffles are better than IHOP and its pancakes. I was playing the devils advocate and argued that pancakes are better because the long-run has given us more IHOPs than Waffle Houses, at least that seems to be the case here in northern Virginia. My brother’s rebuttal to the long-run was that we are not talking about the long-run, we are talking about the present.

Our argument last night was cut short  to yield way to a heated FIFA match and it was only until now, Tuesday morning, that I remember to pick up where we left off.

My argument against my brother’s rebuttal is that the long-run has taken us to the present. Imagine a racquetball aficionado anguished by the crowds he encounters when trying to rent a court. The natural reaction would be to wish that there were fewer racquetball players showing up at the court. The economist in me argues that the crowd is not large enough. If there were more racquetball players in the city, then the entrepreneurial-spirit would invest in more racquetball courts.

Upon further inspection, it looks like the consensus is that pancakes are more popular than waffles simply because we see more IHOPs. Chris and Bill, the people have voted with their dollars and they have voted for IHOP.

After googling what a “waffle” is, I have to agree that waffles are more satisfying than pancakes.

The Market for Soulmates

Professor Bryan Caplan,  Professor of Economics at George Mason University and Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center, once said “Everyone who is single is voluntarily single.”

What he means is that if we lowered our standards enough, we could guarantee ourselves a significant other. Evidently we have high and almost unrealistic expectations for ourselves. If you curse Valentines day because you are without a significant other, you only have yourself to blame. You could have tried romancing with the chubby girl who is always complementing your smile or the girl who everyone shuns. You had to set your eyes on the high hanging fruit, the girl everyone dreams of, the girl who is clearly out of your league.

Bryan Caplan may also suggest that part of the reason you are single is due to an “information problem.” The market is not perfect, there are opportunities for trade that go unfulfilled. In a market for significant others, the best way to correct for the information problem is to ask as many girls out, also known as the shotgun method.

This method may seem unreasonable to some, and there is a bit of a social stigma for those who do employ this method. This is especially true if they are girls. But someone will appreciate your initiative for lowering the information cost, and there is a good chance you will eventually find someone who reciprocates the feelings. Let us say that the chances are higher than if you were to stay at home writing blog posts.

You are at an advantage if what you value most is not a priority for your competitors. For me, soccer abilities take priority followed by their inclination towards libertarianism.

The Morality of Price Gouging and Arbitrage

Price Gouging: pricing above the market price when no alternative is available.

The free market response to either an increase in the quantity demanded or a decrease in the quantity supplied is price gouging.  Today DC finds itself buried in a foot of snow and  as a result snow shovels were cleared off the shelves at retail stores and many found themselves doomed to be snowed in. We need not limit our example to snow shovels, but can expand it to water  and electric generators.  34 of the 50 states prohibit price gouging. Although the law is clear on this issue, is price gouging morally wrong?

Consumer surplus is what economist call the difference between the buyer’s willingness to pay and the price he actually pays. Price gouging discourages buyers who have a lower utility for the good, thus allowing conservation of the good for someone else who has a greater need for it, for someone with a larger consumer surplus.

The alternative would be for the good to be sold off on a first come first serve basis, and the ramifications of dispelling market forces are catastrophic. If prices were fixed, then the first one to show up to buy the electric generator might very well be a father who is running an errand at the request of his daughter, who needs the generator to watch her reality TV show or to straighten her hair. This might be at the expense of another father who is in desperate need of the generator to keep his ailing daughter’s medication refrigerated.  I must ask, is this really the most practical way of distributing goods in an economy?

In an unrestricted market, price gouging would allow sellers to raise the price of a good in the case of a shock, either in the supply or demand of the good. This will allow the man who means to purchase the electric generator for trivial matters to reconsider, and gives the man who’s family is facing a life or death situation, a chance to purchase the generator, albeit at a higher price.

Price gouging, I believe, is perfectly moral and, as opposed to being mortified, should be encouraged. If the price of an electric generator is higher in one city relative to its neighbors it should be expected that the profit incentive will encourage those from neighboring cities to purchase generators from abroad, and bring them into the city that has a need for them, i.e. arbitrage. This increase in the quantity supplied will, in due time, lower the price back to its pre-natural disaster equilibrium price.

Dedicated to Ben A.

Animal Farm

Species extinction is a loaded topic that touches too close to heart to many of my friends and I will do my best to empathize with them.

The Black Rhino has been declared extinct, and we were powerless to stop it. It will only exist in empty museum halls and dusty textbooks, banished eternally from the grasslands it once roamed.

In the grasslands the Black Rhino has become another victim to the Tragedy of the Commons. Individuals, acting rationally out of self-interest, depleted the resource even though its depletion is contrary to the group’s long-term best interest.

They say capitalism was the cause of the Black Rhino’s extinction, however, it could have been key to its salvation. Anti-poaching laws have done little to prevent greedy poachers from hunting down the black rhino to extinction for its horn.

The proper institutions are not in place, government officials are very much bribable. How can anti-poaching laws be enforced if poachers can bribe officials to look the other way? With proper institutions in place, Capitalism coupled with Property Right, a key element of free markets, would have saved the Black Rhino.

Individuals in clear possession of endangered species are best suited to insure their survival. As proprietors of the animal, it is in their best interest to keep something so scarce alive because they know that others value it.

Owning the last pocket of an endangered species screams profit. Rational Choice Theory argues that if there’s value in an estate sheltering an endangered species, then it would also make sense to “farm” them to increase the value of the estate. Yes, I said “farm.”

My friend argues that we would be saving an endangered animal for the wrong reason. I can empathize with her. I too would not want to see an animal caged in its habitat, even if that cage extends beyond its migration patterns. Ultimately I believe that saving an animal for the wrong reasons is better than failing to save them.

If you don’t believe I care about the issue, check out this “endangered species chocolate” bar I bought last night. It’s Rainforest Friendly, NON GMO verified, and Gluten Free!

endangered species chocolate

DC to stay true to its track record of progressive polices

The debate over DC’s minimum wage has been brought up once again. In the summer, DC council members voted to increase the required pay for employees that work in large retail stores, specifically Wal-Mart. Last month Mayor Gray vetoed the bill, the Large Retail Accountability Act, because he thought it would not be right to signal out Wal-Mart. He believed an increase in the minimum wage should be enforced across all sectors of the market.

The goal of this new wage hike is to help the exploited workers of DC make a “living wage” that will see the increase in employee’s wages rise from $8.25 to anywhere between $10.55 to $12.50, as suggested by council member Vincent Orange (D-At Large).

Common sense tells us that everyone will be better off as a result of a hike in the minimum wage, a higher wage would be expected to result in a higher standard of living. Upon closer inspection, economists beg to differ.

Economists argue that businesses that were considering hiring another employee will decide against it, or perhaps the smaller businesses that cannot afford to pay all of their employees the new higher wage will be forced to cut their employees’ hours, or let them go all together. Yes, those employees fortunate enough to still have a job once the dust has settled will see a higher pay, but will they really be better off?

Those lucky enough to not be laid off will have a higher “nominal” wage, but their “real” wage will be the same, if not less. To offset an increase in wages, firms will charge more for their services or goods.

Council member Orange claims that “this is about: a government that exhibits some kind of compassion that provides for people to have a better quality of life.” Unfortunately for him, it is never enough for a policy be of good intent. As Milton Friedman put it, “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

The results of a minimum wage hike will see to it that the very people we intended to help, the inexperienced youths and the elderly, will be made worse off.

The skill set that most youths carry would not justify a “living wage.” They simply do not contribute enough to society, yet. A higher minimum wage will only price them out of the market. Employers facing a hiring decision will choose the more experienced worker who comes closest to justifying a higher wage. The unemployment rate for youths aged 16-19 is already a staggering 34%, we would expect this figure to rise with another minimum wage hike.

Everyone wants what’s best for the elderly, but sometimes we are in fact “doing bad by doing good.”  An increase in the minimum wage will have a similar effect on the elderly as it did for the young, but for different reasons. The elderly do not contribute like they used to, and this is to be expected. In economic jargon, their marginal value product has diminished.

In essence, improving living conditions by raising the minimum wage is alchemy.

Modern alchemy in society

Alchemy, definition number two:  a power or process of transforming something common into something special.

Sir Issac Newton set out to turn lead into gold. Today, we have a new breed of alchemists who seek to turn the poor into the middle class with the flick of a pen.

These alchemists have a recipe but it has not yielded results, yet. They tirelessly work on recipe after recipe in their metropolis hidden in the swamp. Each failure blows up in our face, leaving us scorched and injured. Decades of failed experimentation with detrimental results have only fueled their aspirations and drive.  Yet, we subserviently support their hopeless endeavors to defy the laws of supply and demand.

If only they would mercifully take a moment to recognize that a century of experimentation has robbed us of our dignity and left us begging on the streets, what a respite that would be. Where you once had a proud working class, you now have restless unemployed masses.

Where you once had resilient workers motivated to feed their young, you now see helpless souls begging for change. Where you once had innocence with aspirations of a work prospect, you now have distraught youth who cannot compete with experience.

Who are these infamous alchemists who prowl the swamps of DC? They are our congressmen, who lurk in shadowy caves on Capitol Hill. Their goal is income equality, but their intentions are full employment at an above-market wage, better known as a “living wage.” The consequences of their actions are Kafkaesque; unemployment, discrimination, and cronyism.

An above market wage means that crowds at a time will not find employment because the supply of labor exceeds demand, at the government-enforced minimum wage. There will be employers who simply cannot afford to hire, or to keep hold of their employees. An above market wage gives employers the luxury to hire based on race or sex and not necessarily on merit.

If it were not for the self-proclaimed economics guru that is the voter, indoctrinated and brainwashed by public education endorsed by these alchemists, our congressmen would have been defunded ages ago. After all, it is us who are paying them to in turn bring us to our knees.

English Youths Competing for Time with Marquee Signings

There’s been much talk in England proclaiming that Premier League teams are not giving their English youngsters enough playing time. They claim that it is because of a lack of minutes played by youth internationals that performances by the senior and national teams at the youth levels are suffering. They point fingers at foreign players coming from abroad.

Pessimists argue that the influx of talent from abroad is hindering the opportunities young English players get to play for their club. There is logic in that statement. If a club such as Chelsea or the Manchesters  are going to contest for the title, they need to field the best talent that money can buy them.

In today’s results driven world, clubs find it hard to afford their youngsters playing time, no matter how promising he may be. “English under-21s made up 2.28% of the total minutes played in 2012-13 with Manchester City, Chelsea, Swansea, Stoke and Wigan failing to field an English player under 21 all season.”

Arsenal are the only top four team that consistently provides its youngsters many a chances. This strategy has not yet paid off dividends as the last time Arsenal won the league was with its legendary Invincibles side back in 2003-2004. Albeit it can be said that Arsenal have been forced to look towards developing their players as opposed to buying proven talent due to their move to the Emirates Stadium.

Much can be said about Southampton FC which has done a service to England, albeit while in the bottom divisions.  Yet, even the u-21s of these teams only register 11% and 6% of the percentage of minutes played during the 2012-2013 season, respectively.

France and Spain seem to have had recent success at the U-20s World Cup and at the U-21-European Championship, respectively. Germany could have waltzed into the final had they chosen to participate. The youth of these nations share one thing in common, they are getting more playing time in the five dominant leagues across Europe than English youth.

David Pleat, football commentator, sums it up well “the financial prizes for rising one place in the Premier League are so high now that clubs will jeopardise their youth in order to get those financial rewards.” Clubs are responding to the incentives presented by revenue, and that is to be expected.

A lack of development is an externality problem suffered by the National squads. Why should we expect Manchester City to feature English U-21 if it will not reap the benefits? This is a market failure, but it would be foolish to think that government intervention will fix this problem.

I believe that we, myself included, only hang on to the World Cup and continental championships because we are romantics. We miss the glamour of the France vs England games, the mouthwatering Argentina vs Brasil clasicos. We want to pretend we still live in the days when football players made a modest living and representing your home country was the pinnacle of a player’s career.

The truth is that the beautiful game has been globalized, whether we like it or not. One way to keep international games alive is to allow football associations from each country the opportunity to offer contracts to eligible players. The players’ salaries would be paid for by the respective football association and would not be expected to play at a club level.

In essence, you would have a full time national team composed of players that do not compete at the club level. This may seem like an unpopular move, and years after I’ve written this blog post, this idea does not sit well with me, but this is only a potential solution to a very specific problem England is facing.