Anyone who has studied some economics has likely heard of what is called supply-side economics. However, there seems to be a big misconception over just what supply-side economics actually is. I have heard it defined by quite a few as the following:
The idea that when you cut taxes for the rich, they will spend the money and it will "trickle-down" to the middle-class and the poor.
It has also been defined as:
The idea that when you cut taxes for the rich and business, that they will be so inspired to work harder that they will produce a assive amount of new wealth and increase tax revenues.
Both of these are wrong. Example #1 is often nicknamed (deridingly) "Trickle-Down Economics" and many on the Right throughout the years have fallen hook, line, and sinker for this definition as well it seems. But no economist anywhere (from what I understand) has ever made this claim about supply-side economics.
Example #2 is based on a misconception of the Laffer Curve, which is also a concept misunderstood by many, both folks on the Left and the Right.
There's also a third definition for supply-side economics as well:
The idea that when the economy is in a recession, you cut taxes.
Example #3 is really prominent among people and politicians these days. It seems every time a recession occurs, Republicans say, "Tax cuts! Deficit spending by the government doesn't work." And then Democrats go, "Stop with that ridiculous supply-side economics. We need deficit spending and the reason deficit spending historically hasn't worked is because we have never spent enough."
So I will address these fallacies each in some detail. To start, there's generally two ways of thinking about the economy: demand-side and supply-side. Demand-side focuses on demand. Supply-side focuses on supply. Keynesian economics, named after the economist John Maynard Keynes, is demand-side. Keynes called for demand-side stimulus in recessions. When private-sector aggregate demand drops off, the government needs to step in to make up for the drop-off in demand. There are generally three ways of doing this:
1) Government deficit spending - This in itself has different variations. It means the government runs a deficit in order to spend money to make up for the drop-off in aggregate demand in the private sector. Government can try spending on infrastructure, it could try buying all sorts of stuff to prevent companies from having to cut back on production, also there is what is called military Keynesianism, basically gun up the defense budget to stimulate the economy. Whether or not deficit spending works or not is hotly debated in economics (and would require a whole other blog post to address on its own). The media, generally leaning to the far-Left, will try to make out as if anyone critical of deficit spending as a form of stimulus is some ultra-rightwing crackpot, but the reality is that many economists are skeptical of deficit spending as a form of stimulus.
For example, Harvard economist Greg Mankiw is a skeptic: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/01/krugman-on-stimulus-skeptics.html
Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, on the other hand, is a huge proponent.
(there are other good economists who are skeptics and proponents)
2) Demand-side tax cuts - This shatters myth #3, the idea that supply-side economics calls for tax cuts as a form of stimulus. Demand-side tax cuts are not supply-side, they are throughly Keynesian, they just take an opposite view, that is, instead of have the government run a deficit by spending the money on its own to create demand, just cut people's taxes and let them spend the money instead.
Which works better is again hotly debated. Spending proponents say that if given tax cuts, there is no guarantee the people will spend the money. They may hoard it instead, so then no stimulative effect occurs. Whereas with bureaucrats spending it, you can be absolutely positive it will get spent. This view also relies on what is called the Keynesian Multiplier Effect, basically, that government spending money will increase the GDP, which means people will make more money, which means their aggregate demand will increase, which means that the GDP will expand even further from thir additional spending. According to the spending advocates, the multiplier effect means that for every dollar of government spending, you get more than a dollar of economic growth (in practice, this is very questionable however).
Tax cut proponents say that bureaucrats do not know how to spend the money, that the people know a lot better what to purchase to increase their well-being than bureaucrats do (certain public works projects may create economic growth in terms of the statistics, but do little to nothing to improve the people's well-being), and that deficit spending is too slow. Yes, the money is guaranteed to be spent, but how long will it take? Whereas with tax cuts the money goes immediately to the people.
3) Helicopter Technique - This is basically kind of the same thing as tax cuts, except instead of cutting taxes, the government spends money, but it spends it by sending everyone a huge check in the mail, in the hopes that the people will then spend the money and stimulate the economy. Unemployment benefits are in a sense a form of this.
These are in general the three ways to stimulate the economy to increase demand. All of them have some merti and all of them are open to criticisms as I see it. None of them should be seen as a 100% full-on solution for economic problems. There are also some other ways as well, but they are controversial (for example, unemployment benefits, and raising the minimum wage).
Some say that increasing unemployment benefits will increase aggregate demand and thus help move the economy out of the recession, and thus unemployment benefits need to be continued in this recession for example (according to this belief). You give people money and they will spend it (usually the same people claiming this are the ones who claim the people will hoard the money if it is given in tax cuts it seems!).
Critics point out that maintaining high unemployment benefits and for too long will artificially keep the unemployment rate high (people will sit on their rears on unemployment until their benefits are going to run out, upon which they then start looking for work). Thus, while unemployment benefits for a certain length of time represent a good form of social safety net, keeping them in place too long can inadverdently end up extending a recession.
Both of these views hold merit I think but again both need to be taken with a grain of salt because the criticisms of both of them are pretty valid too.
Another form of economic stimulus is raising the minimum wage. Here again it's the same arguments. The proponents say that raising the minimum wage will give people more money to spend, thus increasing aggregate demand, and thus stimulating economic growth. The critics contend that raising the minimum wage only increases the unemployment rate, because of the laws of supply and demand, i.e. artificially increase the price of something and you create a surplus of it.
And again, there's a form of irony. With something such as gasoline, the same people proposing a "living wage" recognize that artificially raising the price of fuel will get people to buy less. It is one of the best ways to stop people from buying SUVs and pickup trucks and switching to more fuel-efficient vehicles (BTW I am not saying I advocate such a policy). But when it comes to employment, these same people then think that one can raise the price of labor for businesses and not have any side effects.
On this, I would say that the critique of a higher minimum wage is pretty valid. Most employers in America are small businesses, and small businesses have a limit on what they can pay their employees. Increase the costs of those employees and something must give. Each full-time job with benefits may be converted into two part-time jobs with zero benefits, pay can be cut, what the owners pay themselves may be reduced, or prices may have to raised, offerings of goods and services may have to be cut, offerings of the quality of goods and services may cut (less meat on the sandwich), etc...or some combination of the above.
Big Businesses can handle a higher minimum wage better, and I believe it is for this reason that Wal-Mart supports a higher minimum wage.
Also the economist Paul Krugman wrote an article some years ago pointing out the nasty effects to employment of a higher minimum wage as well; he described a way to do the things a "living wage" seeks to do, but with a different policy mechanism. However, this article was written back around 1990. I have the link somewhere, but do not know where it is now. Also, I would not be shocked if Krugman has since changed his mind on this issue. A higher minimum wage also protects the trade unions by pricing workers out of the market.
Now a little on supply-side economics. As pointed out, demand-side economics focuses on demand. Supply-side economics, by contrast, deals with the supply of goods and services in the economy. So for example in dealing with excessive inflation, a demand-sider will look at the problem and reason, "The economy has an excess of demand in it. We need to increase taxes or reduce government spending." (by demand-side economics, if tax cuts are done for stimulus, once the economy recovers, they must be increased back to where they were, or the economy will become overwhelmed with demand according to the theory and skyrocket inflation).
Whereas a supply-side looks at the situation and reasons, "There are not enough goods and services to meet the demand in the economy. We need to see if we can increase the supply of goods and services to meet this demand."
This can be accomplished if taxes on business and investment are too high and also if sectors of the economy are so excessively regulated that it unnecessarilly hamstrings economic growth.
Thus supply-side economics calls for cuts to investment and business taxes. There's only one problem with this: the politics. Because many taxes for investment and businesses are "for the rich." Not too many Americans make money through investments. Only the higher-earners who also devote substantial time to investing, or rich people who make a lot of money from investments, earn money this way. I may be mistaken, but I believe middle-class people can earn money indirectly this way if their pensions or mutual funds receive money via investments. For example, if a big corporation pays out money in dividends, mutual funds, pension funds, etc...that own large chunks of that company's stock, will make money in that sense. However, explaining all of this to the general public as a politician can be a bit tricky.
So in general, cutting investment taxes can be seen as cutting taxes for the rich. Business taxes would be the corporate tax rates, for corporations of course (and nothing tricker for a politician than giving corporations tax cuts!), and the tax cuts that affect small businesses. Small businesses come in various forms, LLCs, LLPs, C-Corporations, S-Corporations, etc...S Corporations are taxed at the individual marginal income tax rates. Actually, the business itself is not taxed at this rate, the income the business makes is passed onto the shareholders who then pay taxes on it at the individual rate.
So business tax rates are the corporate and income tax rates. Only a portion of small businesses are taxed at the highest marginal income tax rates, so a reduction in the highest marginal rates in the hopes of stimulating small business investment and job creation will probably only apply to a limited number of small businesses (although I do not know how many exactly). Interestingly, a reduction in lower marginal tax rates, while a demand-side tax cut, could also, to a degree, be supply-side if it helps a business owner invest in their business more.
The thing to keep in mind however with supply-side economics is that the immediate benefit of any tax cuts for businesses, provided they increase investment, will likely go to the middle-class. This is because the business will hire additional employees. The business does this in the hopes of making more money for the shareholders in the future, but the immediate benefit goes to the workers who were hired.
With an economy hamstring by excessive regulations and/or very high business and investment taxes, slashing these tax rates usually will lead to such a boom in investment and business growth and creation, that a massive number of jobs are created, and with it, a huge boost in tax revenue (along with a huge increase in income and standard-of-living for the middle class). The thing to keep in mind though is that investment and business taxes need to already be pretty restrictive for this to happen. If they are fairly low already, then lowering them further likely won't do much. Another key point to remember: no one gets a job from a poor person or a broke business.
So to get to our examples now:
Example #1
The idea that when you cut taxes for the rich, they will spend the money and it will "trickle-down" to the middle-class and the poor.
As said, no economist has ever made this claim about supply-side economics. Politicians and media pundits, on both the Left and the Right, have made it throughout the years, but it is wrong. That is not to say that such a trickle-down effect cannot happen. It probably could. But that isn't the idea. The idea, as stated, is that when business and investment taxes are cut, you stimulate investment and thus create more goods and services and jobs for the economy. And provided this happens, the immediate benefit is to the middle-class, not the rich.
Example #2
The idea that when you cut taxes for the rich, that they will be so inspired to work harder that they will produce a massive amount of new wealth and increase tax revenues.
As described above, this is based on a misunderstanding of the Laffer curve. Basically, the Laffer curve, by economist Arthur Laffer, says that as you raise taxes, you increase revenues. But eventually you reach a point where taxes are so restrictive that as you raise them higher, you actually start to see tax revenues decline. And the inverse holds true (PAY ATTENTION REPUBLICANS): Lowering taxes that are too high and too restrictive will increase revenues, but eventually you reach a point where when you lower the tax rates, you lower the revenues as well. (this isn't to argue against lowering taxes, just to point out that after a certain point, lowering taxes must also be accompanied by reductions in government spending as well!).
Most economists agree with the Laffer curve in general, but they disagree on what the exact rates are at which revenues start to decline as taxes are increased. This really also depends on the tax itself as well. For example, historically, cutting the capital gains tax rate, in the short-term at least, has increased tax revenues. And raising the capital gains tax rate, in the short-term again, has decreased revenues. But this is because the capital gains tax is a unique tax and what happens in the long term with raising or lowering it is more debatable.
Different taxes behave differently.
As noted above, supply-side economics is based on incentivizing businesses to invest more and create jobs, and for this to happen, the tax rates must already be excessively high. A business isn't just going to invest more because of a minor cut in their taxes. But a major slash can definitely do the trick. For example, in the United Kingdom, when Labour party raised investment tax rates to around 90% I think it was, not much investment occurred. Slash those rates down to 40% though, and watch investment and job creation explode.
Example #3
The idea that when the economy is in a recession, you cut taxes.
Again, as explained above, this is a misconception of both the Left and the Right. When the economy is in recession, provided one wants to try some form of stimulus (Austrian economists hold the view that no stimulus is needed), a stimulus can be either supply-side or demand-side, and a demand-side stimulus can be a combination of deficit spending and tax cuts. One can also combine a supply-side stimulus with a demand-side stimulus.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Alpha and Betas in Personal Relationships
So one of the things that I have been thinking about lately is this whole issue of Alpha and Beta people, in particular, relationships between such people. Basically some have said that any Alpha person should avoid marrying another Alpha person because doing so will mean the personalities will clash and the relationship just won't work. Alphas are usually defined as those who are very ambitious, goal-oriented, driven, etc...while Betas are the more laid-back types.
According to the naysayers, an Alpha woman needs a Beta man, and an Alpha man should only seek a Beta woman.
But I am not so sure. I think it depends on a few things. For example, how does one define an Alpha person versus a Beta? For example, on paper, I am an Alpha. I work hard, am very ambitious, am very goal-oriented and driven, etc...however in other ways, I am a Beta. I am not prone to say complain about bad customer service in the way many others are, or be assertive in the way many others are.
On the other hand, there are those who are Alphas in that they will complain over say bad customer service and who are assertive, but are not goal-oriented or very driven or ambitious.
I think the definitions of Alpha and Beta are a bit over-simplified and that people can have qualities of both, although they may lean more to one way than the other. In terms of what kind of partner is appropriate, I think it just depends on the people.
One could have two Alphas, say two people very goal-oriented and driven, but one may be very Alpha and the other have some Beta characteristics. Or one could have two total Alphas together, but one is more Alpha than the other.
For example:
1) Hard-charging male corporate executive-type, with wife who is also an executive, but wife is more Beta and not as assertive as the man
2) Hard-charging male corporate executive-type along with hard-charging female type, but in this instance, the woman, while dominant in her work, wants a man who is dominant as well, and the man, while dominant, doesn't want a submissive wife, he wants a wife who is his equal.
According to the naysayers, Example #2 should not work, but I think it could. One other thing to keep in mind is Beta does not mean inferior. The hard-charging ultra-dominant male executive type can have a Beta wife, that doesn't mean she is lacking in intelligence or bravery or anything (i.e. a Beta wife is not a Stepford wife).
This can also be reversed too, with wifey the Alpha and husband the Beta, but this is rarer. In the end, I think it just depends on each person. For some couples, both people being a total Alpha could result in disaster, whereas for others, it could work fine.
According to the naysayers, an Alpha woman needs a Beta man, and an Alpha man should only seek a Beta woman.
But I am not so sure. I think it depends on a few things. For example, how does one define an Alpha person versus a Beta? For example, on paper, I am an Alpha. I work hard, am very ambitious, am very goal-oriented and driven, etc...however in other ways, I am a Beta. I am not prone to say complain about bad customer service in the way many others are, or be assertive in the way many others are.
On the other hand, there are those who are Alphas in that they will complain over say bad customer service and who are assertive, but are not goal-oriented or very driven or ambitious.
I think the definitions of Alpha and Beta are a bit over-simplified and that people can have qualities of both, although they may lean more to one way than the other. In terms of what kind of partner is appropriate, I think it just depends on the people.
One could have two Alphas, say two people very goal-oriented and driven, but one may be very Alpha and the other have some Beta characteristics. Or one could have two total Alphas together, but one is more Alpha than the other.
For example:
1) Hard-charging male corporate executive-type, with wife who is also an executive, but wife is more Beta and not as assertive as the man
2) Hard-charging male corporate executive-type along with hard-charging female type, but in this instance, the woman, while dominant in her work, wants a man who is dominant as well, and the man, while dominant, doesn't want a submissive wife, he wants a wife who is his equal.
According to the naysayers, Example #2 should not work, but I think it could. One other thing to keep in mind is Beta does not mean inferior. The hard-charging ultra-dominant male executive type can have a Beta wife, that doesn't mean she is lacking in intelligence or bravery or anything (i.e. a Beta wife is not a Stepford wife).
This can also be reversed too, with wifey the Alpha and husband the Beta, but this is rarer. In the end, I think it just depends on each person. For some couples, both people being a total Alpha could result in disaster, whereas for others, it could work fine.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What Women Want In A Man
So we've all heard the saying I'm sure that a man "...wants a lady in the living room, but a whore in bed." Are women the same way, except with men? It seems many women are attracted to the motorcycle bad-boy types, but obviousy these guys usually do not make for good husband material; oftentimes these types of men can even be abusive. Often the guy who makes good husband material is Boring Bob With A Good Job who takes out the trash daily and pays the bills, etc...but is no motorcycle bad-ass.
So what I've been thinking is, just as so many men want the woman who is a lady in public but wild in bed, do women want a man who can be a gentleman in the living room, but a motorcycle bad-boy in bed??
So what I've been thinking is, just as so many men want the woman who is a lady in public but wild in bed, do women want a man who can be a gentleman in the living room, but a motorcycle bad-boy in bed??
Monday, September 20, 2010
Why I Love Amazon
So one of my favorite things to do is to go book exploring on Amazon. Amazon.com has to be one of the all-time greatest things to ever happen for book lovers. I mean think about it, you look up one book and they provide you with a list that shows other books relating to this one book you looked up, often books that you've never heard of and didn't even know existed. In addition, usually books on Amazon are chock full of reviews, and fairly accurate ones at that (although not always).
And then there's all of the lists created by readers. You can find lists on almost every subject and it is just amazing, because you can get sooooo much information on various books to read. And each book leads automatically to even more books.
One of my favorite things is when one book leads to books on an entirely different subject but one that you actually happen to be passionate about. And then when these books lead to even other books on still other subjects that you are also passionate about (although this time it was also through the public library system). For example, I was doing some research on classical architecture, a subject I am very passionate about.
This led me to a book by a woman named thinking Jane Jacobs, called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." Now this in itself was a discovery, because urban studies, city and town planning, etc...are all passions of mine, relating to architecture. Anyhow, somehow I had never heard of this woman or her book, but apparently it is about how much of the work of the city planners and social controllers of the "modern architecture" type of mindset had messed up our cities and created more problems than fixed.
Upon looking up this book on Amazon, I then discovered a book called "The Economy of Cities," also by Jane Jacobs. Apparently this book is about economic development, basically dealing with how cities influence and are necessary for economic development. Economic development is also a subject I am very interested in, and I see from the Amazon list that apparently Jane Jacobs wrote other books on cities and planning and economic issues as well, so I am very delighted to see that these subjects are combined as they are.
Anyhow, so then I look up the book "The Economy of Cities" in the public library system, and what do I find? A book called "The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy." This also occassionally happens, you do a search in the library system for one book, and up pop other books you didn't know about that happen to be in areas you are very interested in.
Now the histories of business, social control and social engineering, towns, cities, etc...I find fascinating. And this book relates right to them. So then I search on Amazon for this book and it leads me to another book, apparently a great work of literature called, "The Pillars of the Earth," which from what I have gleamed so far is a book that takes place in the 12th century about the construction of a cathedral. Well being a lover of architecture and literature, this sounds like a great book.
This book led me to some other books as well, but I mean you can get the picture. What would we do without Amazon!?
The one thing I do NOT like about Amazon is that they are knocking Barnes & Nobles out of business, but unfortunately, that is just due to the nature of the business of selling books.
And then there's all of the lists created by readers. You can find lists on almost every subject and it is just amazing, because you can get sooooo much information on various books to read. And each book leads automatically to even more books.
One of my favorite things is when one book leads to books on an entirely different subject but one that you actually happen to be passionate about. And then when these books lead to even other books on still other subjects that you are also passionate about (although this time it was also through the public library system). For example, I was doing some research on classical architecture, a subject I am very passionate about.
This led me to a book by a woman named thinking Jane Jacobs, called "The Death and Life of Great American Cities." Now this in itself was a discovery, because urban studies, city and town planning, etc...are all passions of mine, relating to architecture. Anyhow, somehow I had never heard of this woman or her book, but apparently it is about how much of the work of the city planners and social controllers of the "modern architecture" type of mindset had messed up our cities and created more problems than fixed.
Upon looking up this book on Amazon, I then discovered a book called "The Economy of Cities," also by Jane Jacobs. Apparently this book is about economic development, basically dealing with how cities influence and are necessary for economic development. Economic development is also a subject I am very interested in, and I see from the Amazon list that apparently Jane Jacobs wrote other books on cities and planning and economic issues as well, so I am very delighted to see that these subjects are combined as they are.
Anyhow, so then I look up the book "The Economy of Cities" in the public library system, and what do I find? A book called "The Company Town: The Industrial Edens and Satanic Mills That Shaped the American Economy." This also occassionally happens, you do a search in the library system for one book, and up pop other books you didn't know about that happen to be in areas you are very interested in.
Now the histories of business, social control and social engineering, towns, cities, etc...I find fascinating. And this book relates right to them. So then I search on Amazon for this book and it leads me to another book, apparently a great work of literature called, "The Pillars of the Earth," which from what I have gleamed so far is a book that takes place in the 12th century about the construction of a cathedral. Well being a lover of architecture and literature, this sounds like a great book.
This book led me to some other books as well, but I mean you can get the picture. What would we do without Amazon!?
The one thing I do NOT like about Amazon is that they are knocking Barnes & Nobles out of business, but unfortunately, that is just due to the nature of the business of selling books.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Why Do Some People Argue Government Can Do Healthcare Better Than the Free-Market?
So one argument I have heard among many people in favor of government healthcare is that free-market healthcare is "disorganized," "confusing," "inefficient," etc...whereas a government, single-payer system, would be far more simplistic and efficient, removing the disorganization and confusing and clutter that free-market healthcare provides.
The thing that I don't get is, this is the same argument that was made back after World War II in many countries for why they should adopt socialism (the United Kingdom for example); namely, that nationalized enterprises would provide far greater efficiency and better quality goods and services than the disorganized free-market.
Today we know that this is nonsense. Nationalized enterprises do no such thing and in fact result in the total opposite, huge amounts of inefficiency. This is mainly because there is no incentive to compete. Unlike the free-market, a nationalized enterprise has no worry about going out of business. You don't like the service they provide? Tough potatoes then.
So why is it that some people consistently cling to the belief that government can provide healthcare better than the free-market? The problems in the American healthcare system are not due to the free-market; if anything, they are due to excessive government regulation. We have already seen four American attempts at government healthcare spiral out-of-control, namely Medicare, Medicaid (both single-payer government-run health insurance programs), the Massachussettes healthcare program which has been an utter disaster for that state, and Tennessee's TennCare, which ballooned way beyond projected costs.
Even without the above examples, one would think that the very fact that nationalized enterprises don't work would show that government running healthcare won't work either. Yet some people continue to believe it. I was discussing this on a forum awhile back with a friendly Democrat who gave this exact argument, that free-market healthcare is too "disorganized." I asked him, "Well people can't survive without food and need housing. Should home-building be nationalized? Homeowner's insurance nationalized? Should production and distribution of food be nationalized as well? Should we nationalize automobiles and automotive insurance as well?"
I named a few other industries in addition, and he didn't really have an answer. But I'll be he continues to cling to that view.
The thing that I don't get is, this is the same argument that was made back after World War II in many countries for why they should adopt socialism (the United Kingdom for example); namely, that nationalized enterprises would provide far greater efficiency and better quality goods and services than the disorganized free-market.
Today we know that this is nonsense. Nationalized enterprises do no such thing and in fact result in the total opposite, huge amounts of inefficiency. This is mainly because there is no incentive to compete. Unlike the free-market, a nationalized enterprise has no worry about going out of business. You don't like the service they provide? Tough potatoes then.
So why is it that some people consistently cling to the belief that government can provide healthcare better than the free-market? The problems in the American healthcare system are not due to the free-market; if anything, they are due to excessive government regulation. We have already seen four American attempts at government healthcare spiral out-of-control, namely Medicare, Medicaid (both single-payer government-run health insurance programs), the Massachussettes healthcare program which has been an utter disaster for that state, and Tennessee's TennCare, which ballooned way beyond projected costs.
Even without the above examples, one would think that the very fact that nationalized enterprises don't work would show that government running healthcare won't work either. Yet some people continue to believe it. I was discussing this on a forum awhile back with a friendly Democrat who gave this exact argument, that free-market healthcare is too "disorganized." I asked him, "Well people can't survive without food and need housing. Should home-building be nationalized? Homeowner's insurance nationalized? Should production and distribution of food be nationalized as well? Should we nationalize automobiles and automotive insurance as well?"
I named a few other industries in addition, and he didn't really have an answer. But I'll be he continues to cling to that view.
Don't Knock Big Bookstore Chains
This is a random comment not related to anything recent in particular, just something I want to address, namely, criticism of big bookstore chains. When it comes to bookstores, many criticize big bookstore chains for having wiped out small bookstores.
To them, small bookstores were "good" and big bookstore chains are bad. Well, I disagree with this view. In my opinion, small bookstores were cramped, under-stocked, and you were subject to the political leanings of the bookstore owner. What is so awful about a chain? You can go in, sit down and read through a book, and drink a coffee and eat something while you're at it. You also have access to so many books, of every political persuasion, everything from Jean Francois Revel to Jean Paul Sartre, from Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin to Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.
It also seems an elitist view from many such critics, as if big bookstore chains are wrong because they allow the "masses" to read books. Such people seem to take the view that books are not something the general populace should be into at all, but only that a few "elites," such as them, should be into, and able to discuss. A good example of this was when Sarah Palin was asked by Katie Couric, "What do you read?" Disregarding that Palin unfortunately failed that question big-time, it nonetheless expresses the attitude of people of Couric's circle: middle-class Americans don't read (or aren't supposed to). Reading books is something for educated elites like them, and thus should only be in small bookstores that their little circle knows about, not something the masses partake in.
It also is probably just a generalized view that Big Business = bad and small business = good, thus big bookstore chains = bad and small bookstores = good. Which isn't true, one can find quality business and morals from Big Business and corrupt businesspeople in small business. And people can find Big Business run by greedy, corrupt no-goods, and small businesses run by decent people. It goes both ways.
Unfortunately, it seems the big bookstore chains in fact may be heading the way of the dodo, because the biggest ones, like Barnes & Nobles, just cannot keep up with competition from the likes of Amazon.com and eBooks. Why is this? Well, a few reasons (these observations gleaned from reading others opinions on the Internet, they are not my own):
1) Cost of the stores: Amazon has no physical bookstores to run, plus Barnes & Noble's stores are expensive to operate.
2) Books lend themselves so well to Internet commerce: You don't have to try a book on to see if it fits, or test it to make sure it works right. And books are almost impossible to be damaged in shipping.
3) Ebooks: A lot of people are just preferring to download books outright as opposed to buying the physical versions.
This thus may lead to the beloved Barnes & Nobles bookstores going extinct. I have read some say, "Well there are libraries, true, but libraries usually do not have the same atmosphere as bookstores, at least in my opinion. I will miss them greatly if they disappear.
To them, small bookstores were "good" and big bookstore chains are bad. Well, I disagree with this view. In my opinion, small bookstores were cramped, under-stocked, and you were subject to the political leanings of the bookstore owner. What is so awful about a chain? You can go in, sit down and read through a book, and drink a coffee and eat something while you're at it. You also have access to so many books, of every political persuasion, everything from Jean Francois Revel to Jean Paul Sartre, from Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin to Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore.
It also seems an elitist view from many such critics, as if big bookstore chains are wrong because they allow the "masses" to read books. Such people seem to take the view that books are not something the general populace should be into at all, but only that a few "elites," such as them, should be into, and able to discuss. A good example of this was when Sarah Palin was asked by Katie Couric, "What do you read?" Disregarding that Palin unfortunately failed that question big-time, it nonetheless expresses the attitude of people of Couric's circle: middle-class Americans don't read (or aren't supposed to). Reading books is something for educated elites like them, and thus should only be in small bookstores that their little circle knows about, not something the masses partake in.
It also is probably just a generalized view that Big Business = bad and small business = good, thus big bookstore chains = bad and small bookstores = good. Which isn't true, one can find quality business and morals from Big Business and corrupt businesspeople in small business. And people can find Big Business run by greedy, corrupt no-goods, and small businesses run by decent people. It goes both ways.
Unfortunately, it seems the big bookstore chains in fact may be heading the way of the dodo, because the biggest ones, like Barnes & Nobles, just cannot keep up with competition from the likes of Amazon.com and eBooks. Why is this? Well, a few reasons (these observations gleaned from reading others opinions on the Internet, they are not my own):
1) Cost of the stores: Amazon has no physical bookstores to run, plus Barnes & Noble's stores are expensive to operate.
2) Books lend themselves so well to Internet commerce: You don't have to try a book on to see if it fits, or test it to make sure it works right. And books are almost impossible to be damaged in shipping.
3) Ebooks: A lot of people are just preferring to download books outright as opposed to buying the physical versions.
This thus may lead to the beloved Barnes & Nobles bookstores going extinct. I have read some say, "Well there are libraries, true, but libraries usually do not have the same atmosphere as bookstores, at least in my opinion. I will miss them greatly if they disappear.
What a Utopia Modern Society Is
So I've been thinking lately, has anyone ever considered just what a utopia modern society is? To me, it is such a utopia that it almost seems insane to a degree. We have iPods, cellphones, laptop computers, high-speed Internet access, bookstores (although those MAY be on the fritz---Barnes & Nobles is having a lot of trouble competing against Amazon and ebooks), coffee shops (Starbucks in particular), grocery stores BURSTING with fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, cheeses, breads, plus all sorts of other goodies as well. There are innumerable consumer products to purchase.
And with the modern World Wide Web, CRIPES! You've got:
1) Google - arguably one of the greatest inventions of all time, and able to provide instant answers and information for anything. How the heck did we ever even get by without it!?
2) Youtube - another great innovation, if you hear a piece of music or hear of an obscure video, chances are, Youtube has it.
3) Wikipedia - IMO, another great source for starter information on topics. One has to be careful with it regarding topics that involve ideology and so forth, but in general, it gives good starter information I think.
4) Amazon.com - a new book you want to read:? Want to see the general reviews on it from people? Just head to Amazon. Want to look up books on a certain subject? Head to Amazon, they'll likely have the book AND they will then give you a list of additional books that are related to the particular book you are looking at. They will also show you the books that customers who have bought this particular book have purchased.
So amazing.
Movies and videogames too. Movie special effects used to be pretty limited and videogames were pretty lame, but now videogames have stellar graphics and gameplay and movies they are capable of producing any kind of special effects now. Imagine how spoiled rotten the AVERAGE kid in modern America being born today is going to grow up.
Then the autos. I remember when a car phone was a big deal and televisions in cars were for limousines only pretty much. Today, everyone has a cellphone and numerous vehicles have everything from navigation systems to full television and DVD systems if we're talking SUVs.
Or think about access to knowledge. Today, you can listen to almost any piece of music instantly. Anything not available on Youtube you can download for a few dollars from iTunes or Amazon or one of them. You have access easily to all the great composers of music. You have access to all the great works of literature and books, and now that is becoming even easier with ebooks. You can have thousands of titles just on a frigging e-reader or your laptop or desktop.
You can literally sit in a well-heated home or apartment in the freezing winter, in a comfortable chair, drinking a coffee, and listening to any of the great music composers, while reading a great book. The extraordinary wealth of modern society is just truly incredible.
Always remember, the United States is only 5% of the global population, and even if one includes the other Westernized countries in the world, it still is only a fraction of the global population. Most of the world unfortunately lives in squalid poverty still, which means being born into a nation like the United States means you have truly won the lottery of life.
Unfortunately, the way kids are raised these days, they all seem to take all of it completely for granted. No one walks into a farmer's market and marvels at all the food just sitting there available. No one walks into a Barnes & Nobles and marvels at all the books and thinks how great for democracy, for thought and ideas, this is.
I guess I could go on, but you get my point.
And with the modern World Wide Web, CRIPES! You've got:
1) Google - arguably one of the greatest inventions of all time, and able to provide instant answers and information for anything. How the heck did we ever even get by without it!?
2) Youtube - another great innovation, if you hear a piece of music or hear of an obscure video, chances are, Youtube has it.
3) Wikipedia - IMO, another great source for starter information on topics. One has to be careful with it regarding topics that involve ideology and so forth, but in general, it gives good starter information I think.
4) Amazon.com - a new book you want to read:? Want to see the general reviews on it from people? Just head to Amazon. Want to look up books on a certain subject? Head to Amazon, they'll likely have the book AND they will then give you a list of additional books that are related to the particular book you are looking at. They will also show you the books that customers who have bought this particular book have purchased.
So amazing.
Movies and videogames too. Movie special effects used to be pretty limited and videogames were pretty lame, but now videogames have stellar graphics and gameplay and movies they are capable of producing any kind of special effects now. Imagine how spoiled rotten the AVERAGE kid in modern America being born today is going to grow up.
Then the autos. I remember when a car phone was a big deal and televisions in cars were for limousines only pretty much. Today, everyone has a cellphone and numerous vehicles have everything from navigation systems to full television and DVD systems if we're talking SUVs.
Or think about access to knowledge. Today, you can listen to almost any piece of music instantly. Anything not available on Youtube you can download for a few dollars from iTunes or Amazon or one of them. You have access easily to all the great composers of music. You have access to all the great works of literature and books, and now that is becoming even easier with ebooks. You can have thousands of titles just on a frigging e-reader or your laptop or desktop.
You can literally sit in a well-heated home or apartment in the freezing winter, in a comfortable chair, drinking a coffee, and listening to any of the great music composers, while reading a great book. The extraordinary wealth of modern society is just truly incredible.
Always remember, the United States is only 5% of the global population, and even if one includes the other Westernized countries in the world, it still is only a fraction of the global population. Most of the world unfortunately lives in squalid poverty still, which means being born into a nation like the United States means you have truly won the lottery of life.
Unfortunately, the way kids are raised these days, they all seem to take all of it completely for granted. No one walks into a farmer's market and marvels at all the food just sitting there available. No one walks into a Barnes & Nobles and marvels at all the books and thinks how great for democracy, for thought and ideas, this is.
I guess I could go on, but you get my point.
Anybody Out There Consider Themselves a New Victorian?
So recently I stumbled across an article that was written back in 2007 by the New York Observer called "The New Victorians." I actually stumbled across this from having Googled the term "New Victorian" from a book I was reading on dollhouses. It mentioned a particular woman who makes dolls (I forget her name, but the book mentions that she calls herself a "New Victorian").
Here is a link to the article: The New Victorians
I found it very interesting because I think in many ways I am fit the description of being a New Victorian plus it is the description of the type of woman I like in many ways. To put it simply, New Victorians are people for whom being anti-establishment and revolting (i.e. flitting away one's twenties through drinking, parties, constant sex with different partners, and a general lack of discipline) has become so establishment that they are "revolting" by reverting back to the "old" ways (prior 1960s: discipline, hard work, focus, concentration on career, maybe starting a family early and marrying early, etc...).
New Victorians admire and adhere to traditional values. Now this does not mean that they are reverting back to the old ways of Victorian England or 1940s and 1950s America, where a woman's place was strictly in the kitchen. But basically that they are taking the best of the Old and mixing it with the best of the New.
There were many good, traditional values of the old days. That said, there were some bad values as well, most notably the limits women were placed under. With the start of the 1960s, there were many good things that came with that, namely a liberal attitude that was very open to women in the workplace, women being equal to men in most* respects, and so forth. With this came some bad attitudes as well, such as a constant attitude of having to revolt against any and all forms of authority, a lack of discipline, partying away one's life, getting high on drugs, being stupid, and so forth.
New Vics take the best of the New and mix it with the best of the Old. New Vics do not have to be Republican or Democrat, one can find New Vics on both sides.
New Victorian women are likely not to dress in revealing manners and definitely not in the bare open fashion that many women today dress in. This is, again, a revolt against the current, which at it's beginning was a revolt itself, but has now become so normal, that it is a revolt to go back to conservative dress. The argument given by the people who like to "show off" the human body is that "the human body is a beautiful thing and there is nothing sinful or dirty about it." Well this I agree with, and at the time when this first started, it was truly revolutionary. But now it has become so much the norm to see women in skimpy dress that to find a woman who dresses conservatively and more covered up actually seems like the "anti-establishment" means of dressing.
However, among New Victorians, this form of dress can actually be very sexy, but in a different fashion. Basically it's the mystery of "what's under there." The allure of what the woman has hiding beneath that prim and proper clothing.
In this regard, both conservative dress and "skimpy" dress are very sexual and about the human body, but in different ways. It is interesting to think about, too. If all the women are dressed conservatively and it becomes a norm, then seeing a woman dressed with skimpy clothing is very sexual. But when the skimpy clothing becomes the norm, then seeing a woman dressed conservatively can be incredibly sexual, because unlike with the other women, a man is left with the mystery of what is under that clothing, as I mentioned above.
So anyone out there consider themselves to be a New Victorian? I do not know if there is an actual "movement" of people who call themselves New Victorians or if the Observer is just giving an official name to what is a group of people that have technically always existed, but I find it cool nonetheless.
Here is a link to the article: The New Victorians
I found it very interesting because I think in many ways I am fit the description of being a New Victorian plus it is the description of the type of woman I like in many ways. To put it simply, New Victorians are people for whom being anti-establishment and revolting (i.e. flitting away one's twenties through drinking, parties, constant sex with different partners, and a general lack of discipline) has become so establishment that they are "revolting" by reverting back to the "old" ways (prior 1960s: discipline, hard work, focus, concentration on career, maybe starting a family early and marrying early, etc...).
New Victorians admire and adhere to traditional values. Now this does not mean that they are reverting back to the old ways of Victorian England or 1940s and 1950s America, where a woman's place was strictly in the kitchen. But basically that they are taking the best of the Old and mixing it with the best of the New.
There were many good, traditional values of the old days. That said, there were some bad values as well, most notably the limits women were placed under. With the start of the 1960s, there were many good things that came with that, namely a liberal attitude that was very open to women in the workplace, women being equal to men in most* respects, and so forth. With this came some bad attitudes as well, such as a constant attitude of having to revolt against any and all forms of authority, a lack of discipline, partying away one's life, getting high on drugs, being stupid, and so forth.
New Vics take the best of the New and mix it with the best of the Old. New Vics do not have to be Republican or Democrat, one can find New Vics on both sides.
New Victorian women are likely not to dress in revealing manners and definitely not in the bare open fashion that many women today dress in. This is, again, a revolt against the current, which at it's beginning was a revolt itself, but has now become so normal, that it is a revolt to go back to conservative dress. The argument given by the people who like to "show off" the human body is that "the human body is a beautiful thing and there is nothing sinful or dirty about it." Well this I agree with, and at the time when this first started, it was truly revolutionary. But now it has become so much the norm to see women in skimpy dress that to find a woman who dresses conservatively and more covered up actually seems like the "anti-establishment" means of dressing.
However, among New Victorians, this form of dress can actually be very sexy, but in a different fashion. Basically it's the mystery of "what's under there." The allure of what the woman has hiding beneath that prim and proper clothing.
In this regard, both conservative dress and "skimpy" dress are very sexual and about the human body, but in different ways. It is interesting to think about, too. If all the women are dressed conservatively and it becomes a norm, then seeing a woman dressed with skimpy clothing is very sexual. But when the skimpy clothing becomes the norm, then seeing a woman dressed conservatively can be incredibly sexual, because unlike with the other women, a man is left with the mystery of what is under that clothing, as I mentioned above.
So anyone out there consider themselves to be a New Victorian? I do not know if there is an actual "movement" of people who call themselves New Victorians or if the Observer is just giving an official name to what is a group of people that have technically always existed, but I find it cool nonetheless.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The Purpose of This Blog...
So this is my first blog. I have actually been "blogging" for many years now, except talking to myself, as it was basically a typed journal. But now I have decided to try sharing my thoughts with others. I have many, many interests, and the goal of this blog is to cover my various thoughts and rants on various subjects.
You'll notice the blog is called "Civics and Everything Else I Love," well, the first part is because I am a bit of a policy wonk. By "policy wonk" I don't mean some authority on various subjects, but rather that I am very passionate about policy, everything from economic policy (itself made up of monetary and fiscal policy (which itself is made up of tax policy, budget policy, etc...)) to healthcare policy to defense policy to environmental policy to foreign policy and so forth. And of course, that's the big, national-level stuff. I also am very passionate about local, county, and state level policy. Urban policy, relating to cities, I am a huge fan of as well.
In addition to policy, I also have many other interests: business, entrepreneurship, economics, finance, economic history, architecture, arts, film, literature, books, physical culture and health and fitness, engineering, astronomy, physics, mathematics, computer science (I have an amateur knowledge in mathematics and computer science right now though, I am working to remedy though), robotics, space exploration, etc...there are others as well, but you get the idea, I like a lot of stuff!
I post with the name "MechMan." Why MechMan, you may ask...? Well, really because I simply couldn't think up another name. I like mechanical things and I am a man, so..."MechMan" :D
Comments on my various opinions and rants are of course welcome, try to be constructive though when criticizing.
You'll notice the blog is called "Civics and Everything Else I Love," well, the first part is because I am a bit of a policy wonk. By "policy wonk" I don't mean some authority on various subjects, but rather that I am very passionate about policy, everything from economic policy (itself made up of monetary and fiscal policy (which itself is made up of tax policy, budget policy, etc...)) to healthcare policy to defense policy to environmental policy to foreign policy and so forth. And of course, that's the big, national-level stuff. I also am very passionate about local, county, and state level policy. Urban policy, relating to cities, I am a huge fan of as well.
In addition to policy, I also have many other interests: business, entrepreneurship, economics, finance, economic history, architecture, arts, film, literature, books, physical culture and health and fitness, engineering, astronomy, physics, mathematics, computer science (I have an amateur knowledge in mathematics and computer science right now though, I am working to remedy though), robotics, space exploration, etc...there are others as well, but you get the idea, I like a lot of stuff!
I post with the name "MechMan." Why MechMan, you may ask...? Well, really because I simply couldn't think up another name. I like mechanical things and I am a man, so..."MechMan" :D
Comments on my various opinions and rants are of course welcome, try to be constructive though when criticizing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)