Matt Metzgar

Twitter Resistant

It looks like Twitter is gaining in popularity by the day.  Now you have football coaches, U.S. Senators, and millions of others using Twitter.  I remember seeing Twitter way back, a year or two ago and not really getting it.

Currently, I don't have any plans to use the service.  Something about it just doesn't jive with me.  I think the problem is that it would force me to make my ideas concrete on a more regular basis.  I feel a lot of ideas need time to simmer.  Sometimes you get an idea but it's only part way developed, and so you put it on the shelf and come back to it later.  The brain may even be working on it "in the background" during this time, so to speak.  Other times, you realize the idea wasn't so great and then you ditch it.  Either way, I like to work through good ideas and then put them on the blog rather than twitter a bunch of half-ideas.

This blog software has a feature that can create a Twitter update any time a new post is published.  That's probably as far as I want to go with it. 

Teens and Technology

I read this interesting article yesterday.  It shows that teens with late bedtimes (who don't get enough sleep) are much more likely to get depressed and even have suicidal thoughts.  The article points out that the growing reach of technology (Facebook, texting, etc.) may lead to teens staying up too late.

This is just another example of what happens when people try to go against natural patterns.  Daytime is for activity, nighttime is for sleep.  This has been the way for millions of years.  If you try to go against these natural circadian rhythms, you pay the price in one way or another. 

Memorial Day 2009

Book Review: Play

I just finished reading, "Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul", by Stuart Brown.  I had high hopes for this book, but unfortunately my expectations were not met.

You would think a book on play would be light-hearted.  Instead, this was one of the most painful books I've ever read.  The content was nonexistent.  He simply references the work of biologists and then says that's enough to prove his ideas are legit.

The book contains all the overworked cliches, like the high-powered executive who can't relax, the overdriven parent who pushes their kids, etc.  There is also lots of name-dropping, pointing out academic superstars and others.  But as for original ideas in the book, there are none.

Brown keeps pointing out that you can learn the most about play by watching young children or animals.  Yet he then proceeds with page after page of boring, low-caliber material.  The book ends with the predictable ego trip: he plays a lot, his life is great, etc.  Either a publisher convinced him he should write a book on play, or he convinced a publisher; this is regardless of the fact that he is not capable of doing so.

If I were to write a book on play, I would use playful elements like Big Letters and COLOR.  Or even a photo:

(Photo from Flickr)

Play is supposed to be fun!

 

Sellout

Here's another political person I have to comment on: Arlen Specter.  Specter is a long-time Republican Senator from Pennsylvania.  However, after realizing that his chances of winning the Republican primary in his next election were "bleak", what does he do?  He switches political parties!

Of course, he did this only after making a deal that President Obama and the Governor of Pennsylvania would campaign for him.  In essence, he accepted a payout from the other party to switch and increase his chances of re-election.  However, the media cites his "independent streak" and paints him as a maverick!

Someone who takes money to switch parties and stay in office isn't a maverick - the correct term is sellout.

Crooked

I saw this recent article on Stephen Friedman, the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, quitting.  It turns out that Stephen Friedman was also on the board at Goldman Sachs and had a large holding with the company.  The Wall Street Journal contends that:

"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shaped Washington's response to the financial crisis late last year, which buoyed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms. Goldman received speedy approval to become a bank holding company in September and a $10 billion capital injection soon after."

Of course, Friedman says that his actions were "mischaracterized as improper."  Sure, Mr. Friedman, we believe you.  Thank you for your service.

Thanks for Nothing, Federal Reserve

I don't know why the government is so intent on protecting our banking system.  This is in spite of the predatory actions of some of the largest banks.  Here's an example: the government gives billions in TARP money, and then banks immediately turn around and gouge their own credit card customers.  They have raised interest rates on customers with good credit who have never had a late payment.  This used to be called "loan sharking"; now it's called "credit management".

The Federal Reserve has passed new rules governing credit card practices.  But these practices don't take effect until July 2010.  I'd like to know, why the wait?  Let's see: if banks are in trouble because their business models are fradulent, let's immediately give them billions in a bailout.  Yet if credit card consumers are getting abused, let's let them wait a year or so.

These companies wouldn't be in business if it wasn't for the bailout.  It defeats the purpose of capitalism if you let companies make profits in good economic times, but then you bail them out during bad times. 

Bank of America is one of the worst examples.  I have known several people who have worked for Bank of America or worked for a competitor, and they all say the same thing: Bank of America is an unethical, fradulent company.  By all rights this company should be out of business right now.  They made their money selling exploding mortgages and with other deceptive business practices.  Why are we giving taxpayer money to this company?  They are a drain on society, not a benefit to. 

The media would make us believe that letting this company go out of business would be catastrophic.  It wouldn't.  Bank of America is nothing.  If they go out of business, the world will continue on.  Most of the employees will get jobs with other banks.  Further, many of the employees they have hired were due to the growth from their fradulent practices.  If someone who was selling ARM mortgages loses their job, it's tough to feel bad.  The job shouldn't have been there in the first place because nothing of value was being produced or sold.

Bailout Blunder

In teaching economics this semester, I have gone over the bailout several times.  I think historically, this plan will be viewed as a colossal failure.  The main problem with using fiscal policy is the time lag.  The current recession started in December 2007.  Just now in March/April 2009 has the stimulus money started to reach the designated agencies.  This means the economy was a year and half into the recession before this money even reached the initial groups.  Historically, most recessions only last a year or two anyways.

There's a good chance a large chunk of the stimulus spending will be wasted or used inappropriately.  Whatever jobs are created will be limited in number as well.

When the stimulus was passed, it said it would be "successful" if it created jobs and kept unemployment below 10%.  Good luck.  It's already at 8.9% and rising.  My prediction is that it will top 10% either late this year or early next year.

The Age of Lebron

The NBA playoffs are interesting this year with the rise of Lebron James.  It's pretty clear he has become the dominant force in the league.  I think if he gets over the hump and wins this year, you are probably looking at multiple championships over the next 6 to 8 years.

From what I've seen, Lebron appears to be a pretty clean guy.  You don't get the feeling that he has a lot of personal baggage.  It's also nice to see a top player having so much fun.  Though Jordan was great, he always seemed to have a negative edge to his personality.  It was almost like he had to win more than he wanted to win.  Even when you see Jordan nowadays, you don't see him smiling that often.  I'll take being happy and successful over just successful.

Retail Markup

I tried a different approach this month in buying a book I wanted.  Frustrated by the in-person bookstore experience, I went shopping online.  I found this random company, a1books, that seems to be selling many new books at 50% off the cover price.  Of course you have to pay shipping, and the shipping is done through the slower media mail.

Nevertheless, I ordered and received the book about a week later.  I ended up saving one-third of the cover price in the whole experience.  What's amazing to me is that this shows the huge markups involved with the major book chains.  A1books is selling books for 50% off, but still they must be making a profit on that to stay in business.  It appears that a lot of a book's cover price goes to fund bookstore locations, employees, advertising, etc.

I don't feel like I'm cheating the authors by ordering discount books.  I would assume that they make the same amount whether the book is sold through a chain or through a discounter.  This also shows how the self-publishing route can be so profitable.  With minimal overhead, much more profit will flow to the author.

After this experience, I will probably lean towards more online book buying.  I also envision that the publishing industry will change a lot in the next ten years.  With inventions like Kindle, more books will continue to be delivered in electronic format instead of paper.