This October 3rd and 4th I will be attending the 2009 singularity summit in New York City. I think it is very important that more awareness be spread about the possibility of the singularity. Al Gore was recently on a campaign to spread knowledge about global warming at universities. Many university educated students already learned about global warming in high school. I wish more was done to expose students to the possibility of the singularity.
Most university educated students probably have not heard of the singularity and if they are given only a cursory explanation will often quickly and skeptically write it off. Because the non-linear nature of the law of accelerating returns, the singularity is non-intuitive and is harder to convince people of the possibility of it occurring. Moreover, it is often, rightly or wrongly, presented in a very optimistic light which can further add to people's skepticism. Lastly, people can be shortsighted and are presently focusing on the current economic environment and today’s limitations of computers and other technologies.
Even if the probability of the singularity occurring is lower than the probability of man made global warming the potential impact is much higher. The whole future of our civilization might depend on the outcome of the singularity.
If you would like to learn more about the singularity institute excellent information can be found here. http://www.singularitysummit.com/
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Cash For Clunkers, Schiff For Senate
As a matter of policy, the more I hear about the cash for clunkers program the crazier it seems. Peter Schiff discussed the program on YouTube. He pointed out how crazy it is that we are destroying products that have economic value in the name of stimulating the economy. Young people, poor people, and charities could derive a benefit from these cars. Schiff also pointed out that while people own their clunkers free and clear they are being encouraged to go into debt to buy a new car. Debt was a major cause of the financial crisis.
Another justification of the cash for clunkers program is the environmental benefits of getting inefficient cars off the road. A Cato Institute video pointed out that if we want to discourage greenhouse gas emissions we could simply increase taxes on gasoline. Instead we are destroying cars to force people to buy new ones. Of course they aren’t all American cars that are being bought to replace the clunkers. A Toyota dealer discussed the amount of clunkers being destroyed and the sad reduction in charitable donations because of the program. To me all this adds up to an illogical federal program. I was encouraged to see Peter Schiff considering a run for Senate in Connecticut. Let’s hope he wins.
Another justification of the cash for clunkers program is the environmental benefits of getting inefficient cars off the road. A Cato Institute video pointed out that if we want to discourage greenhouse gas emissions we could simply increase taxes on gasoline. Instead we are destroying cars to force people to buy new ones. Of course they aren’t all American cars that are being bought to replace the clunkers. A Toyota dealer discussed the amount of clunkers being destroyed and the sad reduction in charitable donations because of the program. To me all this adds up to an illogical federal program. I was encouraged to see Peter Schiff considering a run for Senate in Connecticut. Let’s hope he wins.
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Curious Laws of Banking and the Federal Reserve
In The Case Against the Fed, Murray Rothbard presents some interesting historical facts about the way banking law evolved. The audio to this is available at www.mises.org.
Rothbard details the way in which bailment law developed differently for warehouses, grain elevators, and banks. In an ordinary warehouse the owner is of course responsible for the items he is storing for the customer. In grain elevators, which deal in fungible grain, the practice of issuing fake warehouse receipts and keeping only a fraction of the actual grain for which receipts exist on hand was treated as fraud and banned. However, the same exact practice was not banned for banks which deal in the fungible commodity of money.
Rothbard presents a good explanation of the way banks create bubbles and how the federal reserve makes this possible by causing the banks to act together in a cartel like structure. I strongly recommend The Case Against the Fed for anyone who wishes to understand the true causes of the great depression and the current financial meltdown.
Rothbard details the way in which bailment law developed differently for warehouses, grain elevators, and banks. In an ordinary warehouse the owner is of course responsible for the items he is storing for the customer. In grain elevators, which deal in fungible grain, the practice of issuing fake warehouse receipts and keeping only a fraction of the actual grain for which receipts exist on hand was treated as fraud and banned. However, the same exact practice was not banned for banks which deal in the fungible commodity of money.
Rothbard presents a good explanation of the way banks create bubbles and how the federal reserve makes this possible by causing the banks to act together in a cartel like structure. I strongly recommend The Case Against the Fed for anyone who wishes to understand the true causes of the great depression and the current financial meltdown.
Loser Pays in Civil Law Suits
The high costs of medical malpractice suits is blamed for the rising cost of health care. One solution to the problem might be to switch to the loser pays system used in some European countries.
I see formal litigation as an expensive test. I think the confusion comes in because we know that in reality the test is imperfect. As an analogy, imagine a 100,000$ BMW is destroyed. The owner accuses Bob of destroying it. They can determine the answer with 100% certainty by reconstructing a digital videotape that has been corrupted. Because it requires sophisticated technology this will cost $20,000. They pool their money at $10,000 each. The tape shows with 100% certainty that Tom destroyed the car not Bob. Should the owner give Bob his $10,000 back or should he eat that cost? And if the tape shows with 100% certainty that Bob was destroying the car shouldnt he pay the owner 110,000$?
I see formal litigation as an expensive test. I think the confusion comes in because we know that in reality the test is imperfect. As an analogy, imagine a 100,000$ BMW is destroyed. The owner accuses Bob of destroying it. They can determine the answer with 100% certainty by reconstructing a digital videotape that has been corrupted. Because it requires sophisticated technology this will cost $20,000. They pool their money at $10,000 each. The tape shows with 100% certainty that Tom destroyed the car not Bob. Should the owner give Bob his $10,000 back or should he eat that cost? And if the tape shows with 100% certainty that Bob was destroying the car shouldnt he pay the owner 110,000$?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)