EclectEcon

"I'm Not Gonna Be Your Friend Any More"

Eventually the U.S. will accede to Russia's demand that Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine be hived off and essentially given to Russia. The U.S. and Nato will sign an agreement, and, a la Neville Chamberlain, will declare "Peace in our Time".

This does not look good. Verbal condemnations and false red lines only encourage bullies.

Russia in Crimea

What'd I say?

From PJMedia:

AFP reports that the Russians have crossed into Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula. Ukraine is accusing Russia of “armed invasion.”

“Thirteen Russian aircraft landed at the airport of Gvardeyskoye (near Simferopol) with 150 people in each one,” Sergiy Kunitsyn, the Ukrainian president’s special representive in Crimea, told the local ATR television channel, adding the air space had been closed. It was not immediately clear if Russia had the right to use the base or send additional troops there under its agreements with Ukraine.

This follows reports that Russian troops have been on the streets in Crimea, and follows by a day reports that unidentified, masked, professional gunmen had seized the parliament building in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, and raised the Russian flag.

Why not? They know that the US will huff and puff and condemn them but not risk a head-on confrontation.

The Russians should remember, though, that the US usually pays/supports insurgents to fight the battles. They may bluster in public but they will also resist expansion by the Russians, using many very different methods.

Related articles

What Are the Odds Putin/Russia Will Invade Ukraine?

Separatism in Ukraine

Large numbers of Russian forces reported entering Crimea

The Chicago Cubs

I have just been watching the Chicago Cubs play a spring season game against the California Angels. As of the time I changed the channel, the Cubs were losing 13-1 after 5 innings.

It reminds of the time I started watching the Cubs on a semi-regular basis. I was in theological seminary in Chicago, and all the Cubs home games were televised on WGN-TV, so I had the games on while I was studying.

That was the worst year in the history of the Chicago Cubs. They won only 59 games and lost 103. Often there would be no more than a few thousand people at a game.

The only good thing that happened that year was that they traded to get Canadian Fergie Jenkins from the Phillies.... a steal.

Travelers' Perspectives on the US

It is interesting to read how people from other countries perceive the United States and its culture(s). It gives us insight into ourselves, into the US, and into the cultures of the visitors.

Here are two examples [just to be clear, everything below other than my brief comments in brackets is from the two bulletted and linked items]:

• Ten travel tips written by Japanese for Japanese travelers to the US.

With the help of Google Translate (and an ability to interpret completely random sentence structure), an American can find out what kind of advice the Japanese give to their own countrymen on how to handle the peculiarities of American culture. Here are some things tolook out for if you are visiting America from Japan. THERE IS A THING CALLED “DINNER PLATES.” AND WHAT GOES ON THEM IS A MIGHTY DISAPPOINTMENT.

1. ... American food is flat to the taste, indifferent in the subtle difference of taste. There is no such thing there as a little “secret ingredient.” Sugar, salt, pepper, oils, and routine spices are used for family meals. There is no such thing as purely U.S. cuisine, except the hamburger, which isn’t made at home so much. There is almost nothing special to eat based on the different seasons of the year. Basically, they like sweet, high fat, high calories things.

   2. BEWARE ROUGH AREAS WHERE THE CLOTHES DEMAND ATTENTION

   In Japan, hip hop clothes are considered stylish. But in the United States, it is wise to avoid them, as you might be mistaken for a member of a street gang. ...

   3. BUT YOU’LL BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED BY AMERICAN TRAFFIC PATTERNS.

   Manners with cars in America are really damn good. Japanese people should be embarrassed when they look at how good car manners are in America. ...

   4. NOBODY IS IMPRESSED BY HOW MUCH YOU CAN DRINK. IN FACT, SHAME ON YOU.

   In the U.S., they do not have a sense of superiority if they are able to drink a large amount. Rather, if you drink a lot, there is a sense that you cannot manage yourself.  [EE: I wish students understood this.] ...

   Non-smokers are more important than smokers in the US. Smokers capture the concept that they are not able to control themselves, and are the owners of weak character.

   5. THEY HAVE FREE TIME ALL WEEK LONG!

   In America, whether you are a student, working person, or housewife, you carefully make room for leisure time, weekdays and weekends. Most people are ensured free time, always. ...

   In Japan we believe that there is no free time during the weekday. Only the weekend. We spend the weekend watching TV, hanging around home, working, studying, and shopping, or listening to music.

   6. KNOWING HOW TO USE SARCASM IS A MUST TO COMMUNICATE WITH AN AMERICAN.

   If you put your bent middle and index fingers of both hands in the air, you are making finger quotation marks. It means you do not believe what you are saying. You can also say, "or so called."

   7. THEY TEND TO HORSE LAUGH, EVEN THE WOMEN. IT’S HOW THEY SHOW THEY’RE HONEST.

   In Japan, when a woman laughs, she places her hand so it does not show her mouth. It is disgraceful to laugh by loudly opening the mouth. Adult males do not laugh much. ...

   In America, when men or women laugh, they do not turn away. They face front, open the mouth, and laugh in a loud voice. This is because in America if you muffle your laugh or turn away while laughing, you give the impression that you are talking about a secret or name-calling. ...

   8. YOU WON’T BE GETTING YOUR GROCERIES ANYTIME SOON, SO CHECKOUT LINES ARE A GREAT PLACE TO MAKE FRIENDS.

   Cashiers are slow. Abysmally slow compared to Japan. I get frustrated when I’m in a hurry. Americans wait leisurely even if you’re in the special checkout for buying just a little something. I thought Americans were going to be quite impatient, but in reality they are extremely laid back. [EE: Really? I see a lot of impatience in checkout lines. They must be hell in Japan.]

   9. THEIR VENDING MACHINES ARE RIDICULOUSLY LIMITED AND DISHONEST.

   Vending machines in the United States just give carbonated beverages. Coke particularly. If you try to buy the juice from a vending machine when you’re thirsty, it’s just all carbonate.  [EE: I wonder where this person was to have this experience]

   10. BUT DARN IT ALL, THEY’RE SO WEIRDLY OPTIMISTIC YOU JUST CAN’T STAY IRRITATED AT THEM.

• Four Russian Travel Tips for Visiting America:

 It’s not easy to find out what the non-English speaking world thinks of us, as it is another unique peculiarity of Americans that most only speak one language. But Google speaks many, even Russian. So with Google’s help, I set out to learn more about “американский этикет,” or, Russia’s take on American etiquette.

1. ON GIVING GIFTS TO AMERICANS

Short Version: Don’t worry about gifts. It’s not a big deal to Americans and can even make them feel bad. If you do gift, go really Russian, they love that. Also did you know bribery was illegal in America? Be careful of that.

“Gifts: Americans do not expect them. On the contrary, an unexpected gift while conducting business can put an American in an awkward position. Such things for Americans suggest reciprocity."

"If you do gift, it is desirable to bring something purely Russian when you visit the United States. But make it 'purely Russian' for modern America - not nesting dolls and samovar. Instead bring a good book about Moscow or Russian history, art and culture. Americans appreciate a good education and have great respect for cognitive literature.” (Деловой этикет по-американски) [EE: I'd rather have nesting dolls, thank you]

“Business gifts in the U.S. are not acceptable. Moreover, they often cause suspicion. Americans fear that they could be construed as a bribe, and in the United States that is strictly punishable by law.” (Национальные особенности этикета в США) ...

2. ON TALKING TO AMERICAN WOMEN

The short version: American women are a little uptight. They might call the cops if you look at them too long. And don’t be gallant, that creeps them out.

“US etiquette prohibits flirting with a woman who is not your girlfriend or wife. If you are not acquainted with a woman, whether she be in a restaurant, on the street, or on the subway, do not look at her legs, etc. Americans could easily call the police on you, even for just ogling her.” (Этикет США)

“Welcome and introductions: men and women tend to shake hands. Mutual kissing and kissing ladies' hands is not accepted. Also, women play a greater role in business. Often they insist to be treated exactly as an equal and not as a lady. In this regard, it is not acceptable to be excessively gallant, and you should avoid personal questions (do not find out whether she is married). (Национальные особенности этикета в США) ....

3. ON SOCIALIZING WITH AMERICANS

Short Version: Americans are delicate buttercups by Russian standards, so be gentle. They get all touchy when you show up at their house uninvited and get their feelings hurt just because you hang up on them when you’re done talking. They also do this thing with their legs that is so annoying. Bring them a badminton racket, they go crazy for those. Oh! And when they say, “See you later,” they’re totally lying. And whatever you do, don’t mention the magnetic storm. ...

4. ON AMERICAN OPTIMISM

Short Version: These people do not stop smiling. Also, they don’t want to hear your problems because it interrupts their smiling. “Surviving” makes you a hero over there. Here it just means you were unlucky, but not unlucky enough to have died.  

“Americans and Russians say different things when faced with the same situation. Seeing the man who had fallen in the street, an American asks, 'Are you all right?' Russians will inquire: 'Are you ill?' We see a victim of the incident; they see survivors.Survivors are perceived as heroes. Where we 'aren’t sick,' they 'stay well.'  We discuss the problem. They discuss issues and items on the agenda."  (Американский речевой этикет)

“US etiquette requires that you smile in each and every situation. ...

"US etiquette also forbids lamenting the troubles of life, or sharing your problems with others. ... Serious problems are for close friends and relatives only.

... Americans: they are a nation that truly feels happy. These people get used to smiling from the cradle onwards, so they do not pretend to be cheerful. The desire for a successful happy life is inculcated from childhood.”

Whingeing about the Cold

We just set another record for cold temperatures here in London, Ontario. The temperature got down to -26C overnight (nearly -20F), breaking a 125-year-old record.

We laugh and moan and worry about it here in London.

But look at the forecast facing my friends in Regina, SK for tonight: the forecast low is -41C (about -43F) and the forecast low windchill is -58C (which is like -73F or something). ARRRGGGHHHH.

Reminder: In temperatures, C = Canadian, F = Foreign.

 

Baseball!

Spring training games begin today!

When Are Well-Meaning People Going to Address Jordanian "Apartheid"?

The photo below has been misused by some people to talk about Israel. As the Elder of Ziyon points out, however, the photo more aptly represents discrimination by Jordanians against Palestinians.

 

What Happened?

Friends and regular readers of EclectEcon have noticed that up until a few days ago, my blog postings and Facebook activity seemed considerably diminished. Aside from a few "likes" and "shares" I didn't post much on Facebook; in fact I didn't even keep up with all the status updates. And the blog postings were generally rare and brief.

They're right. A month ago, we went to Houston to visit our son and his family. While we were there, we both noticed some symptoms of illness (and are grateful that our granddaughters don't seem to have caught this), especially tiredness. Since our return we have both been quite ill. We had symptoms that seemed like H1N1 flu initially, but according to our family physician, this viral flu (whatever it was) morphed into a bacterial infection. The first bout of antibiotics didn't do the job, so she prescribed some stronger ones.

We seem to have improved health now, but it has been an exhausting period. Ms. Eclectic has a persistent cough, I have clogged eustachian tubes, and we are both tired almost all the time. Really tired.  There have been times when I wanted to post things, but just didn't have the energy to think about them deeply enough or to search for appropriate links. We have rarely left our home, and every time we do we go out, we have been extremely exhausted afterward. We managed to get out to do some shopping yesterday, but are done-in now.

We seem to be on the mend, though. Apologies to all whose emails have gone unanswered or been answered with terse remarks.

And to all my friends on Facebook, please do not comment on this. I want people to know, which is why I'm posting this, and I appreciate your implied well-wishes. Thanks.

P.S.: may the person who invented "peel and push" blister packs for medication burn in hell.

What Are the Odds Putin/Russia Will Invade Ukraine?

Suppose Russia and Putin decide to continue the proclamation that the "unrest" in Ukraine is mostly vandalism and illegal activities all designed to overthrow the properly elected gubmnt. Will Russia invade the Ukraine?

Who is going to stop them?

• The rioters, with support from the west? They could put up a valiant fight, but they wouldn't be able to hold against a massive Russian invasion. 
• Nato? The US? I doubt it. Much of Europe is still dependent on Russia for gas and oil, and the US has no interest in going head-to-head with any major power.

Whether the invasion will actually occur, or how likely it is to occur, is already probably well-known by the CIA and other intelligence groups. They surely have satellite photos of troup and equipment movements. But so what? What are they going to do about it? Take it to the UN? Sure.

Will the Ukraine be like another Hungary or Czechoslovakia?  Or will it turn into another puppet war with Russia supporting, arming, and re-arming the eastern, Russian-speaking Ukraine and the west (i.e. the US, primarily) supporting, arming, and re-arming the rebels? I am far from alone in suggesting that Russia might launch an invasion. See this.

Or will the Ukraine split, as I mentioned in my previous post? If so, can the split be done somewhat/comparatively peaceably?

Addendum: For more see the current issue of The Economist.

While politicians in Kiev are scared to mention federalisation because of its separatist undertones, in reality it is already happening. The biggest danger for Ukraine’s integrity is not federalisation, but that Russian interferes and exploits it. That could involve an attempt to annex Crimea, carelessly given to Soviet Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954. Over the weekend 20,000 people were out on the streets in Crimea, welcoming back riot police from Kiev as heroes. Russian armoured vehicles have already been spotted around Sevastopol, home to the large Russian naval base.

Related articles

Separatism in Ukraine

Russia Is Planning to Invade Ukraine

Putin unchecked

Why Russia is so worried about Ukraine

Gubmnt Is Power

100,000 Russians sign call for 'New Russia' which would include Crimea

Separatism in Ukraine

From Foreign Policy Alerts:

Top News: Ukraine's interim President Olexander Turchynov warned of the threat of separatism after the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych.

There remains significant opposition to the new government in Ukraine's eastern, Russian-speaking regions.

This is hardly surprising. It will take a lot to heal the rifts, if that is even possible.

The Folly of SNKM (The Simple, Naive, Keynesian Multiplier)

For decades Keynesian-type economists and the promoters of big gubmnt have argued that injections of spending by the gubmnt into the spending stream lead to additional rounds of spending, economic growth, and more jobs. I actually used to teach this stuff myself back in the late 1960s and early 1970s, having been raised on Keynesian macroeconomic models.

But by the mid-1970s I had doubts. The models didn't seem to be predicting very well. And by the 1980s I would teach the models only to show how ridiculous their assumptions were. And I always said, "If you want more spending during downturns of the business cycle, then you should also strongly and vocally support gubmnt spending cuts during upticks in the cycle; but that rarely happens."

The Great Recession of 2007-10 has, unfortunately, reignited interest in using gubmnt spending to alleviate the severe problems faced during recessions. Scott Sumner at EconLog puts this nonsense to rest (I hope), linking to this comment by Mark Sadowski:

[R]egressing RGDP growth on CAB change for the non-Euro Area countries, we find the R-squared value is 0.0% (you can’t make this stuff up) with a slope coefficient of 0.05 ...

Or, in plain English, when countries each have a unique monetary policy, THE FISCAL MULTIPLIER IS ZERO! [EE: read the full link to see the entire flow of the argument; this is just the summary.]

 That's right. Injecting spending into the economy in countries that have unique monetary policies in general adds nothing to RGDP [real gross domestic product], and hence does nothing to create jobs.

Addendum: Given that increased gubmnt intervention seems to reduce overall RGDP (see pre-Thatcher UK, pre-Pinochet Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, the USSR, China, etc.), there is a very strong case to be made that the long-run Keynesian multiplier for gubmnt spending is often negative.

Reflections on the 2014 Winter Olympics

In no particular order:

• I thought Scott Russell of CBC did a remarkable job as the primary anchor for those of us Canada. He avoided too much gushing and too much turning the focus onto himself. He was SO much better than Brian Williams had been in the past. [disclaimer: Scott was once a student of mine, but that doesn't mean much since I haven't always liked his work in other instances.]
• I don't know what it was like for people elsewhere, but we had pretty decent live coverage of the events. At times it seemed we could choose between CBC, TSN, TSN2, and at least two different Sportsnet channels to watch different events. I really liked that. Most times there were other things to watch than just one event.
• I detest Putin. Clearly he is a demagogue. Yes, he has restored pride in Russia among the Russians, and yes there appear to have been no terrorist attacks in Sochi during the Olympics. As people said about Mussolini, "He made the trains run on time" but he was a murdering demagogue. I put Putin in the same category.
• Despite all the pre-Olympic stories hinting at doom and disaster, the games ran fairly smoothly. Maybe he brought it off by using employers who stiffed their employees. Also see the previous point.
• Where were the rainbow flags? I wished (and expected) more fans there would have carried rainbow flags. Or were the rainbow flags confiscated by Putin's goons?
• Overall, CBC's coverage was better than decent. But their coverage of the closing ceremony was disappointing: too many breaks, too many very long shots from weird angles, too many aerial shots of the area, and too many close-ups so we couldn't get and enjoy the overall picture of what was happening on the entire floor (?) of the stadium.
• I miss hearing the Olympic Anthem that was so prevalent on ABC (and I guess on NBC). It starts out just like "O Canada."

• I'm not all that keen on judged sports. There are always controversies because the judgement involved.
• Although I'm impressed by the athleticism of the people who do aerial/free-style/mogul skiing and snowboarding, I don't much like the sports as a spectator.
• According to something I read but for which I do not remember the citation, Canadians' most prevalent order at Tim Horton's is "double-double" [double sugar, double cream]. The term took on new meaning at the 2014 Winter Olympics as the Canadian men and women teams took gold medals in both curling and hockey.
• As I posted yesterday, I'm intrigued by the lexicographic ordering used to rank countries by medal counts.
• The concluding speech by Thomas Bach (President of the IOC) went on far too long. The minute I saw him on the screen, he reminded me of Anton Gregoriev in the classic BBC mini-series, Smiley's People.

 Related articles

A $45B Injection into the Economy Should be Good, Right?... Right?

Curling: Out with the Old Guard?

David Attenborough on Curling

via Political Calculations, this is such a wonderful spoof (of both curling and David Attenborough). Note that he opted to refer to the UK 3rd as the alpha female, not their skip; an egregious error.

Lexicographic Ordering and Medal Counts at the 2014 Winter Olympics

Apparently Russia "won" the 2014 Winter Olympics. Athletes from Russia won the most gold medals and the most overall medals [with no consideration of the number of  medals per capita, medals per acre, medals per dollar of GDP assessed at purchasing power parity, medals per athlete, etc.] Numerous sites show the medal totals (e.g. here or here).

Country        #Gold    #Silver    #Bronze    Total

Russia           13       11          9         33

Norway           11        5         10         26

Canada           10       10          5         25

USA               9        7         12         28

Netherlands       8        7          9         24

Germany           8        6          5         19

Etc.  

The interesting thing I've noticed is that apparently the listings/rankings by International Olympics Committee use a lexicographic ordering to rank the countries: They rank by gold medals, and only if there is a tie in the number of gold medals won do they consider the number of silver medals won; and only if there is a tie in both the number of gold and silver medals won do they consider the bronze medals.

In other words, as with lexicographic preferences in economic theory, there are NO trade-offs. They do not say, "well three bronze equal two silvers" or whatever. There are no weights involved to generate a ranking. For example, with this system, you don't weight gold=1, silver=0.9, and bronze =.8  (or supply your own weights; it doesn't matter). All that matters is the lexicographic order.

Did the USA beat Canada in the medal count? Using totals (as often was emphasized on NBC), they did. And of course it is possible to come up with a weighting scheme whereby the USA topped Canada in the medal count. But with lexicographic ordering, what counts are gold medals regardless of how many silver or bronze medals were won.

Do we observe lexicographic ordering in consumer preferences? Possibly, but no example comes to mind. The case of perfect complements comes close but not quite.

Addendum: maybe the best way to weight the medals is by resale value.

A Question about The 2014 Olympics

When everything is over, how many "lucky" coins representing the countries of losing teams will people find under the ice/snow? All we ever hear about are the coins planted by winners.

Poor Losers?

After Canada eked out wins over the US in both women's and men's ice hockey over the past two days, some folks in the US didn't take it very well (via Jack):

But to be honest, I really liked the pregame sign in Chicago:

The Loser Keeps Beiber

How Old Are You in Days? I'm < 32873

From Jack, this site.

Sex, Horndogs, Porn, Curling, and the Blog

Some years ago, in an attempt to generate traffic to the blog, I posted links and subject lines to attract the attention of people who were looking for photos from the "Nude Women of Curling" calendar. [see here, here, and here, for example].

It worked. Traffic to the blog is up this week during the Olympic curling, and about half the traffic seems to be from people searching for nude photos of female curlers.

When I saw the traffic was up, I was hoping it was because people were interested in my views on economics or on higher education or something in my recent posts.

Nope.

And traffic at the curling blog is high, too, despite the fact that I haven't posted anything there for a long time. Same reason.

Apparently sex sells (as if we didn't already know that).

Muslim Studies at Huron College: What Do They Have to Hide?

Nearly three years ago, I wrote to the then Principal of Huron College, an affiliate of The University of Western Ontario, warning that their plan to accept $2 million to endow a chair in Islamic Studies was likely to lead to serious problems in the future, in large part because the source of the funding was questionable (see this, this, this, and this). I also pointed out that $2m is nowhere near enough to fund a chair and that clearly much of the funding for this "chair" would be drawn from the general funds.

Neither Huron College nor The University of Western Ontario heeded our warnings. They accepted the money and appointed Ingrid Mattson to the chair. Here is one less-than-supportive view of her credentials [via JT]:

Professor Mattson herself is a former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that was named by the FBI as a Muslim Brotherhood front as early as 1987. In 2007, ISNA was designated as an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, a charity shut down by the U.S. government for financing Hamas. During the trial, the U.S. government listed ISNA as one of the “individuals/entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.”

Recently this professor offered a course in proseletyzing for the Muslim faith. A non-Muslim was allowed to sign up for the course as an auditor but was then removed from the course, ostensibly because he wished only to audit the course. However, the prerequisites have changed to indicate the course is open (only?) to Muslims. From the same link,

As soon as Watson enrolled in Mattson’s course, he was told he would not be allowed in, ostensibly because he was only auditing the course. The syllabus was then changed to reflect this new prerequisite --that the the course must be taken for credit. In addition, a new line was added to the syllabus stating that the course was “open to Muslim men and women who offer religious leadership and/or speak publicly about Islam on behalf of their communities.”

To Watson, it was clear that the latest prerequisite was put in place to keep non-Muslims out of the course.

“It was the speed at which I was rejected,” Watson said, noting that another auditor was allowed to take the course for credit. “I [received] an email telling me [the] course was full [due to those taking the course for credit]. … I was never given the option of taking [the] course for credit.”

Then next day, Watson spoke to the Dean of Theology, who refused to take any action. Interestingly, the dean, Rev. Canon Todd Townshend, is an instructor of pastoral theology and welcomes non-Christians into his course.

Although Huron College began as an Anglican seminary, it is now a part of the University of Western Ontario. Yet, it still offers courses that teach future priests how to preach. ...

Watson says he does not object to a course that teach Islamic preaching. However, if it is being taught at a publicly funded school, it must be open to all students. If not, he says, it should being taught in a mosque or some other private venue.

As Barbara Kay has written,

It should be noted that UWO’s own code of ethics precludes any inquiries into a student’s religion during interactions. So it would seem that, prima facie, 54-year old accountant Moray Watson has a strong case for his accusation of discrimination against Huron College.

Nobody, including Watson, has a problem with a course in public speaking about Islam being offered at a college if it is inclusive. He also has no problem with it being exclusive, but offered in a venue such as a mosque or a community centre or a seminary that is not tax-funded. It’s really quite a simple issue. Open up the course or shut it down.

Related articles

Ontario university defends decision to kick non-Muslim out of course that teaches Islamic preaching

Non-Muslim claims discrimination

Sherlock, Series 3 -- very disappointing

When I saw the first few episodes of the initial series of "Sherlock", starring Benedict Cumberbatch, I was enthralled. He played a Sherlock who was consistently and honestly more over-the-top than Jeremy Brett's portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, but in a fun way that was almost believable. The shows made you want to believe, even though they were far-fetched. The use of computer technology seemed on the cutting edge, even if it wasn't or wasn't quite possible, and the relationships that evolved were interesting, intriguing, fun, and implausible but credible.

The plots were vaguely related to the plots of the originals by Conan Doyle, as implied by the titles. The acting was crisp, and the shows were massively more enjoyable than the movie(s) by Downey, Jr. We bought the blu-ray versions of both the first two series and were eagrely looking forward to Series 3.

What a disappointment. The acting is still crisp, but it is so over-the-top that it actually detracts from the plots, such as they are.

I don't blame the actors, though. I blame the writing and directing. The plots are thin, confused, and even less believable than those of the first two series. With Sherlock-3 we are now embroiled in stories that are more sci-fi fantasy than mysteries solvable by geniuses. And all the jumble of this-that-this-that blah blah blah that goes on seemingly every 5 minutes is, quite frankly, worse than annoying.

 

**** Spoiler Alert ****

 

---

 

 

How bad are the plots? As my younger son, Adam Smith Palmer, said about Episode 3-3, when Sherlock couldn't out-think the villain, he shot the person.

Well, isn't that a stunning triumph of wit, genius, and brilliance over brute force.

 

. .

Imagine - a Libertarian Version

I ran across this recently, but it had no attribution (with apologies to John Lennon).

Imagine there's no gubment

It ain't easy but please try

No 99% below us

Above us no gubment spy

Imagine all poor people

Living like ours do today...

 

Imagine there's no politicians

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to vote or Idle for

And no redistribution too

Imagine all the people

Buying stuff in peace...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be out of many one

 

Imagine no recessions

I wonder if you can

No need for rent or subsidy

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Wandering all the world...

 

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will be out of many one

Special Bonus Prize

I have noticed that many people (especially hockey coaches) at the Olympics are wearing neckties. There's a special bonus prize for the first reader who spots a verifiable wearing of a necktie worn by anyone at the Olympics tied in either the Eldredge or the half-Eldredge knot. My hope is it isn't Putin.

A $45B Injection into the Economy Should be Good, Right?... Right?

Following the Simple Naive Keynesian Model (I call this SNKM, pronounced snickem) that still appears in far too many economics textbooks, an injection of gubmnt spending into the spending stream should have gigantic multiplier effects and should stimulate tonnes more economic activity. At least that's the nonsense I was taught back in the 1960s and that many people seem to believe today.

So Russia's expenditure of $45b on the Olympics should be good for their economy, right? Nope.

• Those are scarce resources that could have been used to produce something else, e.g. better highways, schools, and other infrastructure. This is the essence of the concept of "opportunity costs".
• Where does the funding come from? If the gubmnt taxes to obtain the funds, then spending is reduced somewhere else; and if the gubmnt borrows the funds, then those funds are far less likely to be available for someone else to borrow and spend.

And given the massive losses suffered by the Athens economy, and given all the unused infrastructure there following the Olympics, it is difficult to believe the Sochi Olympics will have [m]any lasting benefits.

From Bloomberg,

Putin marshalled more than $45 billion to host the most expensive Winter Olympics, rather than spending on schools, hospitals and infrastructure investors say is needed to revive growth. Government forecasts show that the economy, which expanded at an average rate of 7 percent in the first eight years of Putin’s rule, will grow at a third of that pace between now and 2030.

“If all that astronomical amount of money, astronomical even for Russia, had been invested in the improvement of utilities and services, it would have given a strong push to economic development,” said Vadim Bit-Avragim, who helps manage about 148 billion rubles ($4.3 billion) at Kapital Asset Management LLC in Moscow.

There's a Simple Solution: Raise the Price

The demand curve for water is downward sloping. As the price rises, the quantity demanded declines. And yet water is consistently underpriced in many areas. From today's NYTIMES:

The punishing drought that has swept California is now threatening the state’s drinking water supply.

With no sign of rain, 17 rural communities providing water to 40,000 people are in danger of running out within 60 to 120 days. State officials said that the number was likely to rise in the months ahead after the State Water Project, the main municipal water distribution system, announced on Friday that it did not have enough water to supplement the dwindling supplies of local agencies that provide water to an additional 25 million people. It is first time the project has turned off its spigot in its 54-year history.

Blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc. They want to do more research into climate change. What a frickn waste: do more research into the economics of water. Raise the friggn price and watch the quantity demanded drop.

Oh, some people will be hurt when the price of water is raised? Yes, that happens. They have been benefiting from a price that has been held too low for far too long. Time to face reality.