7.11.02
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CONSERVATIVES. Details at the Volokh Conspiracy (posted 6.29 pm on 6 November, there are signal troubles at Blogger again.)
MICROSOFT UPDATE. Jane Galt has discovered and reacted to a Scott Rosenberg column in Salon. Rosenberg is not happy with the decision. Jane Galt is not happy with Rosenberg's column. Here's what got her going:
"Microsoft chose to weave Internet Explorer code into the guts of Windows in a manner that served no conceivable user benefit but that helped Microsoft elbow Netscape out of the market."
I seem to recall that the Seattle dialect of Java played some part in the case, but I digress.
Here's her riposte to Rosenberg's main point:
"I repeat that you are not allowed to consider benefits to owners of companies that might be created or get more market share, because that's not what the law is designed to do; it's supposed to protect consumers, not corporations or even their employees.
Seems to me that the benefits are all out of proportion to the costs.
Rosenberg's argument is essentially "Yes, but if we look at the costs, we can't do anything about the scourge of Microsoft!"
Mmm-hmmm. And they think free-marketers are dogmatic?"
Leaving aside the point-counterpoint, it is by no means settled that the Sherman Act is supposed to protect consumers. "Throughout the history of these statutes it has been understood that their purpose has been to perpetuate and preserve, in spite of possible cost, an organization of industry in {small firms] that can effectively compete with one another." That's from the 1945 Alcoa ruling. More recent law has established that a dominant firm can compete on the merits of its product, but tweaking the merits runs the risk of committing intentional exclusion.
There is one aspect of this case that bothers me: what distinguishes a browser from an operating system? I admit to being somewhat less than current with computer architecture, but much of the dispute about browsers strikes me as an argument about whether to put the code in the main deck of cards, or behind the STOP card with the subroutines.
"Microsoft chose to weave Internet Explorer code into the guts of Windows in a manner that served no conceivable user benefit but that helped Microsoft elbow Netscape out of the market."
I seem to recall that the Seattle dialect of Java played some part in the case, but I digress.
Here's her riposte to Rosenberg's main point:
"I repeat that you are not allowed to consider benefits to owners of companies that might be created or get more market share, because that's not what the law is designed to do; it's supposed to protect consumers, not corporations or even their employees.
Seems to me that the benefits are all out of proportion to the costs.
Rosenberg's argument is essentially "Yes, but if we look at the costs, we can't do anything about the scourge of Microsoft!"
Mmm-hmmm. And they think free-marketers are dogmatic?"
Leaving aside the point-counterpoint, it is by no means settled that the Sherman Act is supposed to protect consumers. "Throughout the history of these statutes it has been understood that their purpose has been to perpetuate and preserve, in spite of possible cost, an organization of industry in {small firms] that can effectively compete with one another." That's from the 1945 Alcoa ruling. More recent law has established that a dominant firm can compete on the merits of its product, but tweaking the merits runs the risk of committing intentional exclusion.
There is one aspect of this case that bothers me: what distinguishes a browser from an operating system? I admit to being somewhat less than current with computer architecture, but much of the dispute about browsers strikes me as an argument about whether to put the code in the main deck of cards, or behind the STOP card with the subroutines.
6.11.02
FATAL TRAIN FIRE. Where Worlds Collide links to a BBC report on a fire in a Deutsche Bahn sleeping car on the Paris-Vienna sleeper. Reports attribute the fire to a faulty heating system. The car in question looks new enough to have electric heating, what's to burn?
The story links to previous reports about European rail safety. The Superintendent notes that none of the current European or Japanese high-speed trains meet North American collision standards.
We extend our condolences to the families of the travelers, listed as North American, German, Russian, Hungarian and Greek citizens.
The story links to previous reports about European rail safety. The Superintendent notes that none of the current European or Japanese high-speed trains meet North American collision standards.
We extend our condolences to the families of the travelers, listed as North American, German, Russian, Hungarian and Greek citizens.
SHAMEFUL ACTS OF VANDALISM YET TO COME. St. Pancras Station in London is gorgeous, as UK Transport notes. The immediate threat, however, is to Paddington. Maybe you can't see Warships there any more, but another minimalist office tower in place of the fourth arch?
As an aside: here's another reason to view Chicago's Metra as a class outfit: the diesels have names.
As an aside: here's another reason to view Chicago's Metra as a class outfit: the diesels have names.
SHAMEFUL ACTS OF VANDALISM PAST. A Letter from Gotham post inspired by the reading of The Destruction of Penn Station and The Late Great Pennsylvania Station prompts UK Transport to recall the demolition of Euston Station in London. To be sure, there is something to be said for creative destruction, but the new Euston Station, like the redeveloped concourse building at Chicago Union Station, is an obstacle course for commuters, with little space to wait near the gates.
This is what we lost at Penn Station.
In a previous post I recommended adapting the concourse building to the new subway and Tube station to be build at the World Trade Center site. It's fitting. Letter from Gotham correctly compared Penn Station ("The only thing I can compare it to is the interior of the Hagia Sophia or the Blue Mosque in Instanbul. But neither really compared. Penn Station was incomparable.") to sacred spaces. The concourse building drew on the Basilica of Constantine. The booking hall was based on the Baths of Caracalla.
What was downstairs was even better. But I commend Destruction of Penn Station. It's an art book, and it's the most effective railway-themed book I've ever seen that didn't have any trains in it.
This is what we lost at Penn Station.
In a previous post I recommended adapting the concourse building to the new subway and Tube station to be build at the World Trade Center site. It's fitting. Letter from Gotham correctly compared Penn Station ("The only thing I can compare it to is the interior of the Hagia Sophia or the Blue Mosque in Instanbul. But neither really compared. Penn Station was incomparable.") to sacred spaces. The concourse building drew on the Basilica of Constantine. The booking hall was based on the Baths of Caracalla.
What was downstairs was even better. But I commend Destruction of Penn Station. It's an art book, and it's the most effective railway-themed book I've ever seen that didn't have any trains in it.
PIGS WITH WINGS. A Common Dreams post finds something nice to say about the World Trade Organization. I am not making this up.
CURIOUS BLOGGER BEHAVIOR. So what else is new, you'll tell me. I'm posting from Internet Explorer account some Blogger features that run only in Explorer. But I'm getting faster opening of archives by copying the link to Netscape and opening with Netscape. And I thought digital command control was confusing.
THE DANGEROUS MYTH OF GRADE INFLATION That's a Chronicle of Higher Education public access article (no registration required), fisked by Tightly Wound.
The Superintendent has examined Tightly Wound's certificate of convenience and necessity, and recognizes her for interchange privileges.
There may be commentary from the Superintendent on the phenomenon of grade inflation, but not today. Academicians please note the example of the Pacific Coast Talgo trains operated for Amtrak. There are six train sets, meaning no spares for equipment failure. The Spanish manufacturers of those trains are embarrassed that there were six failures in the first few months of operation. Imagine embarrassment at a 99% reliability rate.
The Superintendent has examined Tightly Wound's certificate of convenience and necessity, and recognizes her for interchange privileges.
There may be commentary from the Superintendent on the phenomenon of grade inflation, but not today. Academicians please note the example of the Pacific Coast Talgo trains operated for Amtrak. There are six train sets, meaning no spares for equipment failure. The Spanish manufacturers of those trains are embarrassed that there were six failures in the first few months of operation. Imagine embarrassment at a 99% reliability rate.
DEKALB SCHOOL BOND ISSUE FAILS, AGAIN. Here's some food for thought from Reason Online: "It is a fact that some public schools are literally falling down, that others don't meet state mandated earthquake standards, and that a tremendous need for new classroom space exists. It is also a fact that the public school establishment has squandered and continues to waste billions upon billions of dollars. It is also a fact that the entrenched power within the system has no interest in any viable alternatives." The earthquake reference is local to California. The concluding sentence holds without loss of generality.
LAWS OF CONSERVATION. Neal Boortz offers "THE DEMOCRATS' (SECRET) PLAN FOR AMERICA." Alas, it fails a few simple sniff tests.
"Using “refundable” tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich."
Let's see, that's the 1916 income tax code, isn't it? We all know how effective that was at raising taxes.
"$15,000 of their income. Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride! They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters. But wait! Isn't that going to cost the government money? Are you kidding? Of course it's not! It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues! Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes. To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear. Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000."
Let's take that proposition seriously. Now anybody earning more than $20,000 a year, meaning about 3/4 of the workforce, is a taxpayer. And expanding the base for the Social Security tax base simply raises the incentive to opt out. One of the great conjuring tricks of the Social Security tax is the exemption of high incomes. "Why don't they buy a 401k," sniffs the modern Master of the Universe.
"Give the Democrats the power [to expand the tax base - Sup't.] and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn … no matter how much that is. There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners. The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy."
See above.
"When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell."
That's the old imputed rent argument, which Mr.Boortz comments on below, using something called the Haig-Simon definition of income (again, thanks, Bob Lampman and Bob Hutchens.) Some of us with longer memories recall this idea being bruited about in 1993, as part of the Clinton Administration's tax reform and balanced budget plan. With 2/3 of the housing stock in the United States owner-occupied, such a proposal has the potential to convert Democratic voters into Republicans. (Wait a minute, didn't that happen in 1994?)
There might be good reason to be skeptical of tax plans that involve running money through Washington and transferring some of it to others, but at least think through the reasons for your skepticism.
"Using “refundable” tax credits and deductions and such ideas as the fraudulent Earned Income Tax Credit the Democrats are working to shift the entire burden for the payment of federal income taxes onto a minority of US taxpayers. Right now the top 50 percent of taxpayers pay almost 96 percent of the taxes. The Democrats are close to their goal. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts – and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich."
Let's see, that's the 1916 income tax code, isn't it? We all know how effective that was at raising taxes.
"$15,000 of their income. Bingo -- the poor now have a completely free ride! They are now life-long, dedicated Democratic voters. But wait! Isn't that going to cost the government money? Are you kidding? Of course it's not! It's not going to cost the government money because they're simply going to raise the salary cap for Social Security taxes by enough to cover the lost revenues! Right now the cap is around $88,000 on Social Security taxes. To cover the shortfall Reich says they will just raise the salary cap by $15,000 ... to $103,000 a hear. Reich forgets, though, that there is no cap on Medicare taxes, so raising the cap by $15,000 would not recover the Medicare taxes lost by excluding the first $15,000 in income. In reality the Democrats would have to raise the salary cap by about $19,000. They would just round it off to $20,000."
Let's take that proposition seriously. Now anybody earning more than $20,000 a year, meaning about 3/4 of the workforce, is a taxpayer. And expanding the base for the Social Security tax base simply raises the incentive to opt out. One of the great conjuring tricks of the Social Security tax is the exemption of high incomes. "Why don't they buy a 401k," sniffs the modern Master of the Universe.
"Give the Democrats the power [to expand the tax base - Sup't.] and watch that wage base jump to $100,000, $200,000 and beyond. The eventual Democrat Party goal is to have people pay Social Security taxes on every penny they earn … no matter how much that is. There will no comparable increase in benefits for the high income earners. The extra money will be used to keep the Democratic middle and low-income constituency happy."
See above.
"When the Democrats ride into power you had better be prepared to kiss that mortgage interest deduction -- and a lot more of your money -- a fond farewell."
That's the old imputed rent argument, which Mr.Boortz comments on below, using something called the Haig-Simon definition of income (again, thanks, Bob Lampman and Bob Hutchens.) Some of us with longer memories recall this idea being bruited about in 1993, as part of the Clinton Administration's tax reform and balanced budget plan. With 2/3 of the housing stock in the United States owner-occupied, such a proposal has the potential to convert Democratic voters into Republicans. (Wait a minute, didn't that happen in 1994?)
There might be good reason to be skeptical of tax plans that involve running money through Washington and transferring some of it to others, but at least think through the reasons for your skepticism.
HARVEY PITT FALLOUT. Lengthy Brad DeLong post on what may yet come. Transparency matters. The short form is this: Competitive markets allocate resources efficiently. In order for any competitive market, including capital markets, to allocate resources efficiently, the relevant information must be quickly discovered and quickly acted upon. That's Professor DeLong's "But for this to work, the market has to know what it is doing."
HOW OTHERS SEE US: "Unfortunately, there is a whole generation of annoying buffoons, hired back when standards were much, much lower, still occuping positions in academia. People like that would be screened out today." By golly, InstaPundit has discovered the Silent Generation. Previous discoveries by Josh Chavetz and Andrew Sullivan have been noted at the Shops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
