I am starting a movement. Every year we "Spring Ahead" one hour over the weekend. With the new rules, that means a crucial weekend during which many people started celebrating St. Patrick's Day was shortened by a crucial hour. This is just plain immoral!
Here is my solution: We should move the time change to a Tuesday afternoon, at about 3PM. Allow Americans to shorten their work day by 1 hour one day a year. Politicians will love this.....how could you not vote for a guy who let you go home an hour early.
As for the "Fall Back" part of the deal, let's keep the extra hour on the weekend.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Food Inc.
Every time I talk about our skewed food system, somebody suggests I should watch "Food Inc", Robert Kenner and Eric Schlosser's documentary about where our food comes from. So, I finally watched it the other night while having dinner, which, by the way, is probably not the best way to enjoy a film that shows your meat being processed.
A few days ago I posted the chart about where our food subsidy money goes, versus what we should be eating, and "Food Inc" covers that subject to some extent. More alarming, though, is the revelation that our food supply is controlled by only a few huge corporations with monopoly power, which our anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent. Monsanto, for instance, sells 90% of the soybean seed in the US, which is a market share Microsoft can't even dream of.
Where is the FTC? Bought and paid for by the corporations, as is the FDA and USDA, particularly under the Bush administration, where lobbyists were hired to oversee the industries who paid them previously. Any wonder then why we have had so many outbreaks of e coli? While I am sure that the Obama has replaced the Bush lobbyists with more scientific leaders, I am not sure if inspections at packing plants have been increased, and certainly nothing has been done to change our ass-backwards farm programs.
"Food Inc." makes clear that most of our food is not grown, it is manufactured. Animals in huge feedlots who never eat the foods they were meant to, industrial corn turned into all the ingredients on the side of the cereal box. As our health care costs march us toward national bankruptcy, with no help in site, we need also be aware of the effect our food policy has on our health care costs.
Okay, writing this has bummed me out. Anyone got a deep fried Twinkie?
If you have Netflix, you can watch "Food Inc." on your computer. For more info on the movie and other food stuff, check out the Food Inc. web site.
A few days ago I posted the chart about where our food subsidy money goes, versus what we should be eating, and "Food Inc" covers that subject to some extent. More alarming, though, is the revelation that our food supply is controlled by only a few huge corporations with monopoly power, which our anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent. Monsanto, for instance, sells 90% of the soybean seed in the US, which is a market share Microsoft can't even dream of.
Where is the FTC? Bought and paid for by the corporations, as is the FDA and USDA, particularly under the Bush administration, where lobbyists were hired to oversee the industries who paid them previously. Any wonder then why we have had so many outbreaks of e coli? While I am sure that the Obama has replaced the Bush lobbyists with more scientific leaders, I am not sure if inspections at packing plants have been increased, and certainly nothing has been done to change our ass-backwards farm programs.
"Food Inc." makes clear that most of our food is not grown, it is manufactured. Animals in huge feedlots who never eat the foods they were meant to, industrial corn turned into all the ingredients on the side of the cereal box. As our health care costs march us toward national bankruptcy, with no help in site, we need also be aware of the effect our food policy has on our health care costs.
Okay, writing this has bummed me out. Anyone got a deep fried Twinkie?
If you have Netflix, you can watch "Food Inc." on your computer. For more info on the movie and other food stuff, check out the Food Inc. web site.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
How Dumb is Our Food Policy?
An editorial in the NY Times today endorses the proposal in Albany of a tax of 1 cent per oz on sugary sodas. A similar tax idea was dropped recently in Colorado. Clearly, something this sensible can never be passed in a nation racing to stupidity as fast as ours.
One of the things all economists know is that if you want less of something, tax the hell out of it. In a nation with an obesity problem and health care costs out of control, it not only makes sense to tax sodas as we do cigarettes, but to add a lot of other foods to that tax list as well. If I were dictator, we would be paying for our health care system by taxing foods based on how bad they are for you. We already tax alcohol and cigarettes because they are bad for us, so what is the big deal with taxing soda? That would result in less usage of sugary soda, which could reduce obesity and diabetes. The only problem with the New York proposal is that the tax is probably not big enough to substantially reduce soda sales.
I am not a nutritionist, but I am guessing that two sodas a day are probably worse for you than 2 glasses of wine. (Anyone know the answer to that?).
Another thing economists know is that if you want more of something, subsidize it. So, it makes sense for the government to subsidize things that are good for us like renewable energy and education. What doesn't make sense is to subsidize, instead of tax, things that are bad for us. So we can only be described as complete morons for tolerating the subsidies shown in the chart above, which came from THIS story in the NY Times Economix blog. That's right, the food people say we should eat lots of fresh fruit and veggies, but we instead subsidize meat and cheese. As a result, you can see the comparative costs of healthy foods versus unhealthy have moved in the wrong direction.
And if you're not convinced yet that we are a nation of morons, then listen to the interview on Fresh Air from NPR with David Walker, who had been warning us, to no avail, of impending national financial doom. He makes great sense.....which explains why no one in Washington is listening.
Hey, I'm an Economics teacher. It's my job to bum you out!
Monday, March 8, 2010
Wish I'd Seen It!
Unlike last night's Oscars show, which was pretty my lacking in any entertainment, I wish I could say I have seen "The Hurt Locker". But I didn't, and the odds are you didn't either. It only grossed about $21M, which is about what Avatar did in it's first weekend at my local theater.
So, bravo for the academy voters for not making the same mistake they did with James Cameron's previous Oscar winner, the dreadful "Titanic". They chose a movie that they thought was the best, paying no attention to the ticket sales. And a big "BOOOOO" to Hollywood in general for not putting any money into the marketing of the winner. And another big "BOOO" to the theaters, for running a system where good films only last about a week if they aren't doing big box office.
Here in Boulder we now have only one theater, with 16 screens. This sucks. Before this theater opened, we had an art film house across the street from where it opened. I likely would have had a chance to see "The Hurt Locker" there. But it closed when the new theater opened, as did every other theater in town. So, now we have one high tech theater that shows mostly big budget crap, and have to go to Denver or wait for Netflix to see the stuff that doesn't appeal to the masses. And we can just forget about seeing a documentary if we don't want to go to Denver (the exception is "The Cove", which won best doc last night, and was made by Boulderites). I find it astounding that a city as educated and ....well, different...as Boulder can not support an indy theater.
Hopefully, "The Hurt Locker" will reappear in theaters now. In the mean time....Please Landmark Theaters, open another place in Boulder! I promise to go every week. I'll even stop sneaking in my own beer and M&M's.
So, bravo for the academy voters for not making the same mistake they did with James Cameron's previous Oscar winner, the dreadful "Titanic". They chose a movie that they thought was the best, paying no attention to the ticket sales. And a big "BOOOOO" to Hollywood in general for not putting any money into the marketing of the winner. And another big "BOOO" to the theaters, for running a system where good films only last about a week if they aren't doing big box office.
Here in Boulder we now have only one theater, with 16 screens. This sucks. Before this theater opened, we had an art film house across the street from where it opened. I likely would have had a chance to see "The Hurt Locker" there. But it closed when the new theater opened, as did every other theater in town. So, now we have one high tech theater that shows mostly big budget crap, and have to go to Denver or wait for Netflix to see the stuff that doesn't appeal to the masses. And we can just forget about seeing a documentary if we don't want to go to Denver (the exception is "The Cove", which won best doc last night, and was made by Boulderites). I find it astounding that a city as educated and ....well, different...as Boulder can not support an indy theater.
Hopefully, "The Hurt Locker" will reappear in theaters now. In the mean time....Please Landmark Theaters, open another place in Boulder! I promise to go every week. I'll even stop sneaking in my own beer and M&M's.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Hey, I had this idea!!
A couple years ago, when I was hanging out with Fiona (who often comments on this blog), she became interested in genealogy. She did a trace of my ancestry and managed to connect me to all kinds of famous people, including Malcomb, King of Scotland made famous in Shakespeare's "McBeth". I believe this makes me the rightful king of Scotland.
As she kept tracing my ancestry and discovering this interesting stuff, we had an idea for a reality show. You trace people's ancestry, and at the end of the show reveal something fascinating about the person's former relatives. We thought it would be great for the history channel. Of course, we didn't know anyone in showbiz, nor have the cojones to go around pitching this idea, so we just amused ourselves with the discussion. We also didn't think to include celebrities. But we did figure to get Ancestry.com to sponsor.
This morning, I read in the paper that NBC has a new show called "Who Do You Think You Are". It is exactly the show we had come up with, including the participation of Ancestry.com, with the exception that they are tracing the genealogy of celebs instead of normal folks. I am so bummed out.
I guess the moral of the story is that you no matter what stupid idea you may have for a TV show, you should pursue it. No telling what kind of crap they will put on TV.
As she kept tracing my ancestry and discovering this interesting stuff, we had an idea for a reality show. You trace people's ancestry, and at the end of the show reveal something fascinating about the person's former relatives. We thought it would be great for the history channel. Of course, we didn't know anyone in showbiz, nor have the cojones to go around pitching this idea, so we just amused ourselves with the discussion. We also didn't think to include celebrities. But we did figure to get Ancestry.com to sponsor.
This morning, I read in the paper that NBC has a new show called "Who Do You Think You Are". It is exactly the show we had come up with, including the participation of Ancestry.com, with the exception that they are tracing the genealogy of celebs instead of normal folks. I am so bummed out.
I guess the moral of the story is that you no matter what stupid idea you may have for a TV show, you should pursue it. No telling what kind of crap they will put on TV.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Nominal versus Real Movie Grosses
I've been teaching my macro classes about the concept of "real" versus "nominal" numbers recently, so I thought I would share some info I became aware of from the Economix blog at the NY Times.
In nominal terms, "Avatar" is the all time leading earner in the movie business, having raked in over $700B of our dollars in the US. But is it really? Not if you adjust for inflation. In fact, according to this chart at Box Office Mojo, it is only 15th, when adjusted for inflation, or, as economists would state it, in "real" terms. In fact, it trails James Cameron's previous over-rated blockbuster "Titanic".
While this may be a bit of fun trivia when discussing movie box office, it is important when discussing more serious economic issues. To compare "nominal"....and by that, I mean numbers achieved at the time they were achieved"....numbers from one year to another, particularly if those years are far apart, is utter nonsense. Yet, you will hear politicians, pundits and journalist do this.
More meaningful numbers are made "real" via a few methods, depending on the number. One is to just adjust the numbers by the rate of inflation between periods. You can find an adjuster on the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site that will do that for you instantly. For other statistics, say size of deficits or government spending, you can make numbers meaningful by comparing it to the size of the economy in general.....stating it as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If someone is using numbers from different times to make a point, find out if they are "real". If not, they are worthless.
Moral of the story: Beware the nominal number, and mistrust anyone who would use them to make their point.
In nominal terms, "Avatar" is the all time leading earner in the movie business, having raked in over $700B of our dollars in the US. But is it really? Not if you adjust for inflation. In fact, according to this chart at Box Office Mojo, it is only 15th, when adjusted for inflation, or, as economists would state it, in "real" terms. In fact, it trails James Cameron's previous over-rated blockbuster "Titanic".
While this may be a bit of fun trivia when discussing movie box office, it is important when discussing more serious economic issues. To compare "nominal"....and by that, I mean numbers achieved at the time they were achieved"....numbers from one year to another, particularly if those years are far apart, is utter nonsense. Yet, you will hear politicians, pundits and journalist do this.
More meaningful numbers are made "real" via a few methods, depending on the number. One is to just adjust the numbers by the rate of inflation between periods. You can find an adjuster on the Bureau of Labor Statistics web site that will do that for you instantly. For other statistics, say size of deficits or government spending, you can make numbers meaningful by comparing it to the size of the economy in general.....stating it as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). If someone is using numbers from different times to make a point, find out if they are "real". If not, they are worthless.
Moral of the story: Beware the nominal number, and mistrust anyone who would use them to make their point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)