Earlier this week, Rep Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made a comment something akin to it making more sense to abandoning the old New Orleans and rebuilding in a safer place. This brought outrage among Louisiana politicians and others.
But why? New Orleans, although historic and a tourist spot, is on ground which has been sinking for hundreds of years. This instability caused the "fish-bowl" effect which caused the city to continue to suffer such horrific disasters.
Some are calling for the reconstruction and shoring up of additional levees. The truth of this tragedy is that the levees were constructed for protection of nearly any devestation. The levees were thought to have a 99.5% liklihood of success, meaning that about once every 200 years, some storm might come and breach the levees. Statistics are that this is about as good as it gets. No matter what you build there, there is some probability of failure. How are we going to protect against that when it happens?
Every community has some liklihood of devestation, whether it be tornadoes in the Midwest, earthquakes in the West, or tsunamis in the Pacific and Indian oceans. What community planners must do is to design to reduce the liklihood of failure. They should at least seriously consider this option.
Finally, John Thierney of the New York Times, today proposed some changes to how this country insures against floods. As you may or may not know, 2/3 of the homes in the region that was just devestated had no flood insurance. This is often the case in the regions that need it most. The more expensive the insurance, the less likely people are to build in a specific region, thereby making it less likely that this kind of devestation will occur. Because the Federal Government essentially offers free insurance to people in the hurricaine zones, there is no incentive to not build here.
If you'd like to check out the article, it can be accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03tierney.html?oref=login
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Friday, September 02, 2005
Hurricaine Katrina
This past week, Hurricaine Katrina, a hurricaine which measured a category 4 (or once in a 300 year hurricaine to hit the United States) did hit the Gulf Coast. Without a doubt, this catastrophe was devestating. In these kinds of times, peoples' generosity overwhelms you. My wife and I just donated to Mercy Corps, a locally based charity which allowed us to earmark our contribution for this disaster.
I suggest for those of you who have an interest, to look up the website, www.charitynavigator.org. This will allow you to pledge money to the most efficient charity you wish to contribute.
Donate if you can.
I suggest for those of you who have an interest, to look up the website, www.charitynavigator.org. This will allow you to pledge money to the most efficient charity you wish to contribute.
Donate if you can.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Outraged About Gasoline!
No, it's not what you think. I am not outraged by the prices; not even the $6 print in Atlanta. Anybody who wishes to pay $6 per gallon for gasoline has every right to do so. And the government has no obligation in protecting people from their own stupidity.
What I am outraged about is the commentary and the whining by consumers. No government is telling you that you must drive. Further, no government is telling you to buy an automobile that gets less than 25 miles per gallon. We as individuals freely make choices, and one of those choices is to pay for gasoline.
While I am not thrilled by paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, the prices have risen so dramatically for two reasons: demand is outstripping supply, and frankly, prices should rise to whatever level sellers can make a profit, even an outsized profit.
Let me put it this way. Gasoline is no different than a home, except that shelter is a requirement of life. If I wanted to try to sell my 1050 square foot home for $1 million, would I be accused of "price gouging?" Probably not, because nobody would be stupid enough to buy my little home, as cute as it is, for $1 million. In fact, I'd be lucky to get an agent who would waste his time trying to market my house for $1 million. But I have every right to try to list it at this price, even though it would be nearly 8 times my purchase price.
If housing prices had gotten so hot that somebody was actually willing to buy my home for $1 million, should I go to jail for price gouging? Of course not. The counter party has every right to purchase any house they want (or rent for that matter), and they should attempt to bargain for the best price. That is what makes the system work.
If you willingly choose to pay $6 for gas, you are solely to blame for telling the market that $6 is an appropriate price. I don't fault gas stations for raising their prices. They should. In fact, they should raise prices enough to make a sufficient profit (in their eyes, not the governments) and still be competitive with other stations, so long as they are not colluding with other stations, which probably should be against the law.
So if you don't like the high prices for gasoline, I have a tip: Don't buy gas! If someone is charging what is too much in your eyes, don't buy from them ever again. And tell them. It is your choice to pay higher prices for gasoline.
What I am outraged about is the commentary and the whining by consumers. No government is telling you that you must drive. Further, no government is telling you to buy an automobile that gets less than 25 miles per gallon. We as individuals freely make choices, and one of those choices is to pay for gasoline.
While I am not thrilled by paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, the prices have risen so dramatically for two reasons: demand is outstripping supply, and frankly, prices should rise to whatever level sellers can make a profit, even an outsized profit.
Let me put it this way. Gasoline is no different than a home, except that shelter is a requirement of life. If I wanted to try to sell my 1050 square foot home for $1 million, would I be accused of "price gouging?" Probably not, because nobody would be stupid enough to buy my little home, as cute as it is, for $1 million. In fact, I'd be lucky to get an agent who would waste his time trying to market my house for $1 million. But I have every right to try to list it at this price, even though it would be nearly 8 times my purchase price.
If housing prices had gotten so hot that somebody was actually willing to buy my home for $1 million, should I go to jail for price gouging? Of course not. The counter party has every right to purchase any house they want (or rent for that matter), and they should attempt to bargain for the best price. That is what makes the system work.
If you willingly choose to pay $6 for gas, you are solely to blame for telling the market that $6 is an appropriate price. I don't fault gas stations for raising their prices. They should. In fact, they should raise prices enough to make a sufficient profit (in their eyes, not the governments) and still be competitive with other stations, so long as they are not colluding with other stations, which probably should be against the law.
So if you don't like the high prices for gasoline, I have a tip: Don't buy gas! If someone is charging what is too much in your eyes, don't buy from them ever again. And tell them. It is your choice to pay higher prices for gasoline.
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Most recent book
I recently completed another book, this one about Uzbekistan. I chose this topic for a couple of reasons:
First, Uzbekistan, if not at the heart of the war on terrorism, is certainly in one of its ventricles.
Secondly, I knew so little about Central Asia that I figured I wanted to know something about it.
The book (once again, a travelogue), called "Chasing the Sea" by Tom Bissell, was the reporting of a former Peace Corps Volunteer, who had returned after terminating his service early in the mid 90's. The country is largely a desert flatland, consisting of steppe and even some mountainous regions east of its capital in Tashkent.
Uzbekistan is interesting because while nominally Muslim for more than 1000 years, religion, particularly ardent, practicing religion had not been embraced until very recently, when an insurgent form of Islam began to develop with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I predict that Central Asia will be a cross roads of sorts in the war on terrorism within the next decade, or so.
First, Uzbekistan, if not at the heart of the war on terrorism, is certainly in one of its ventricles.
Secondly, I knew so little about Central Asia that I figured I wanted to know something about it.
The book (once again, a travelogue), called "Chasing the Sea" by Tom Bissell, was the reporting of a former Peace Corps Volunteer, who had returned after terminating his service early in the mid 90's. The country is largely a desert flatland, consisting of steppe and even some mountainous regions east of its capital in Tashkent.
Uzbekistan is interesting because while nominally Muslim for more than 1000 years, religion, particularly ardent, practicing religion had not been embraced until very recently, when an insurgent form of Islam began to develop with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I predict that Central Asia will be a cross roads of sorts in the war on terrorism within the next decade, or so.
Colonoscopy
Yesterday, I had my second colonoscopy in three years. The main purpose of this analysis was to see if I had developed any additional pollyps, one of which was determined to be pre-cancerous in my previous scope.
As I had thought, the worst part was the prep, where I had to drink 2 liters of a substance roughly akin to drinking storm drain water. Once that was complete, I felt much better. The scope itself was brief, painless and non-memorable (thanks to the Verced).
For people who should get one, don't hesitate. It is such a simple procedure, which is mostly painless and it can, in fact, save your life.
I am likely to have at least one every five years for the rest of my life to assure the doctors and myself that I am not developing colon cancer (a slow moving but very deadly killer).
And, after not eating for nearly 48 hours, my first meal was terriyaki chicken from the local grocery store in Tualatin, Haagen. It was even better than I remembered.
As I had thought, the worst part was the prep, where I had to drink 2 liters of a substance roughly akin to drinking storm drain water. Once that was complete, I felt much better. The scope itself was brief, painless and non-memorable (thanks to the Verced).
For people who should get one, don't hesitate. It is such a simple procedure, which is mostly painless and it can, in fact, save your life.
I am likely to have at least one every five years for the rest of my life to assure the doctors and myself that I am not developing colon cancer (a slow moving but very deadly killer).
And, after not eating for nearly 48 hours, my first meal was terriyaki chicken from the local grocery store in Tualatin, Haagen. It was even better than I remembered.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Whiz Wit'
Last night, my good friend Mat came over for a weekly bull session/barbecue and we grilled up some flank steak (choice from Fred Meyer, only $2.50 per pound) for a menu item he refers to as a "Whiz Wit'" which is basically a Philly Cheese Steak minus the peppers. It includes steak (sliced), onions, a french roll and of course, Cheese Whiz. Yes, it is as good as it sounds, particularly since we used Walla Wallas for the onions.
Once a week we try to get together and cook up some kind of different meal (utilizing his culinary expertise). Since it is the Summer now, we have largely been barbecuing, which we both enjoy tremendously. Kari doesn't benefit as much since she won't eat most any kind of meat, but she is quite a good sport.
Once a week we try to get together and cook up some kind of different meal (utilizing his culinary expertise). Since it is the Summer now, we have largely been barbecuing, which we both enjoy tremendously. Kari doesn't benefit as much since she won't eat most any kind of meat, but she is quite a good sport.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Pseudoephedrine
Recently, the Oregon legislature became the first in the country to require a prescription to get common cold medicine.
First, some points of reference:
For the past year or so, all pseudoephedrine products are located in the pharmacy, "behind the counter," and require proof of identification to purchase these products (Sudafed, Migraine and allergy medication).
Also, Washington state does not require a prescrption for this medicine (although they also may hold the products behind the counter).
It is not required by Oregon State law for a doctor to meet with a patient to dispense prescriptions.
As with all things government, their intentions are good. Obviously, methanphetamine is a dangerous illicit drug. Furhter, we do not wants labs which turn pseudoephedrine (and other ingredients) into methanphetamine. However, requiring a prescription will only serve to harm the vast majority of the population. People will spend far more time going to their doctors because of the common cold. This will monopolize doctors valuable time and increase the cost of health care.
Further, if we want to prevent the conumption of methanphetamine, this will not work. We already know that other drugs with completely illegal ingredients are prevalent in the state, despite the fact that you cannot legally obtain any of the ingredients (such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana).
If we want to prevent the manufacture of these drugs in the state (homemade labs), this legislation will not impact that aspect either. Drug dealers can import pseudoephedrine in from Washington, Idaho, California, or as is currently common, Mexico. Because of these restrictions, the cost (and therefore profit) of methanphetamine will rise, encouraging additional participants into the market, especially organized crime.
So we have to ask ourselves, how do we reduce consumption and production of a drug (or anything for that matter). Economically speaking, to reduce demand of any item with inelastic demand (not price sensitive), requires allowing people to choose not to consume that item on their own (such as cigarettes). Unfortunately, the only two items which work in this capacity are stigma and education. Price does not provide much impact. If we are looking to reduce supply of any item, it must become economically unattractive for the producers. This is caused by driving prices down, making it less profitable, driving high cost manufacturers out of business. This cannot be accomplished by any of the current legislation which will only drive prices higher.
First, some points of reference:
For the past year or so, all pseudoephedrine products are located in the pharmacy, "behind the counter," and require proof of identification to purchase these products (Sudafed, Migraine and allergy medication).
Also, Washington state does not require a prescrption for this medicine (although they also may hold the products behind the counter).
It is not required by Oregon State law for a doctor to meet with a patient to dispense prescriptions.
As with all things government, their intentions are good. Obviously, methanphetamine is a dangerous illicit drug. Furhter, we do not wants labs which turn pseudoephedrine (and other ingredients) into methanphetamine. However, requiring a prescription will only serve to harm the vast majority of the population. People will spend far more time going to their doctors because of the common cold. This will monopolize doctors valuable time and increase the cost of health care.
Further, if we want to prevent the conumption of methanphetamine, this will not work. We already know that other drugs with completely illegal ingredients are prevalent in the state, despite the fact that you cannot legally obtain any of the ingredients (such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana).
If we want to prevent the manufacture of these drugs in the state (homemade labs), this legislation will not impact that aspect either. Drug dealers can import pseudoephedrine in from Washington, Idaho, California, or as is currently common, Mexico. Because of these restrictions, the cost (and therefore profit) of methanphetamine will rise, encouraging additional participants into the market, especially organized crime.
So we have to ask ourselves, how do we reduce consumption and production of a drug (or anything for that matter). Economically speaking, to reduce demand of any item with inelastic demand (not price sensitive), requires allowing people to choose not to consume that item on their own (such as cigarettes). Unfortunately, the only two items which work in this capacity are stigma and education. Price does not provide much impact. If we are looking to reduce supply of any item, it must become economically unattractive for the producers. This is caused by driving prices down, making it less profitable, driving high cost manufacturers out of business. This cannot be accomplished by any of the current legislation which will only drive prices higher.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
