Sunday, May 30, 2010

Chewy Cookies -- More Capitalist Scheming to Our Detriment or a Wise Use of Resources and Marketing? You Decide!!!


An Econ Conjecture (be forewarned: this entry was recently voted by my followers as the Most Boring Entry Ever, but it has to do with Econ, not really with cookies.): When I was a child, cookies were considered good if they were crisp. A box of Nabisco vanilla wafers promised crisp golden coins of carmelized sugar. Chips Ahoy? The same.

But now, vanilla wafers are pale yellow and instead of crisp, they're chewy to the point of bendable. Chips Ahoy aren't crisp either. And, of course, many cookie manufacturers have been marketing the chewy, almost doughy nature of cookies. Indeed, cookie dough is sold as is for eating and it's folded into ice cream.

How and why did we go from crisp to doughy? Finally, my conjecture: I suspect that the oil embargo of 1973 and the attendant steep rise in fuel costs cut deeply into the profits of industrial bakeries.

What to do? The demand for cookies continued unabated, but the cost of production skyrocketed.

But if the cookies could be baked for less time and at lower temperatures, well, they'd still be cookies, right? There'd be a saving in fuel costs to be sure and with each batch cooking for less time, labor productivity would go up and labor costs might diminish.

Would people buy cookies that seemed, in their experience, undercooked?

Certainly! But only if they were told to by marketing ploys that sold the idea of the "chewy" cookie.

And since the late 70's, I haven't had one decent vanilla wafer.

Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Pledge Break -- Please Give Me Money


And now it is time for a pledge break.

Please give me money.

My polls indicate that only one in ten of you reading my blog ever pledges your support for my blog with a monetary contribution. In Economics 101 terms, this makes you a free rider. In more colloquial terms, a freeloader.




My goal for this pledge break is 2.2 million dollars. I can reach that, but only with your help. Really. It will only happen with your help.

Once I reach my goal, you can go back to the very eclectic writings and videos that draw you into my blog 20 to 30 times a day.

Perhaps you would like a gift in return for your pledge of support. And so, if you pledge – rather, if you SEND or personally give me -- $50,000 I will send you 5 excellent mixes from my very eclectic iTunes library.

Also, please note, some of my more affluent blog supporters have promised to match your gift of support if you give me any amount of money.

So what are you waiting for? Perhaps an 800 number? I can do better than that! If you promise a sum of $100,000 or more, I will meet you personally at the café of your choosing. I’ll buy! And, of course, I’ll bring the mixes.

Monday, May 24, 2010

Eclectic? Well-Rounded? Spiky? Or . . .

Last week, author Cory Doctorow spoke at my school about "gold farming" and the growth of games as content providers and even as locations of labor strife. In the course of the Q&A with our students, he was asked something about how he stays so "well-rounded" and I thought he answered brilliantly saying that he believes "well-rounded is boring" and that, instead, he regards himself as "spiky," i.e., someone who amps up on the knowledge in some very specific areas while reconciling himself to near-absolute ignorance in other areas.

Clearly, in the current Google-fed, information-sated environment, we can more easily afford to be spiky in some areas and relatively untouched by other areas. We know that we can easily acquire literacy and even a measure of depth in a subject through a judicious use of online resources, thus giving us a new "spike," while letting development in other areas pass us by, thus diminishing what had been a spike elsewhere.

My concern: I'm neither well-rounded or spiky. Instead, as a generalist, I'm lumpy. I have several areas of some partially amped up knowledge going beyond the wherewithal of laypeople, but none of these areas rise to the level of spikes. Just lumps.

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Musica Electronica -- Song of the Month


About two minutes of this is sufficient, but it gently rewards greater loyalty, too.

Excerpt from NYT: Rand Paul and the Perils of Libertarianism



Rand Paul and the Perils of Textbook Libertarianism
By SAM TANENHAUS
Published: May 21, 2010, NYT

". . . Mr. Paul has tangled himself up in a . . . contradiction. His championing of private businesses, ignoring the rights of just about everyone else, places him on the wrong side of history, just like the first opponents of the Civil Rights Act. One fierce opponent of civil rights legislation, William F. Buckley Jr., admitted as much. 'I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow,' Mr. Buckley said in 2004. 'I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary.'”

(That's Ayn Rand on the left up there. My guess: Rand P. got his name from A. Rand.)

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Michael Kinsley on "Tea Party Patriots"


Michael Kinsley in the 6.10 Atlantic Monthly:

Some people think that what unites the Tea Party Patriots is simple racism. I doubt that. But the Tea Party movement is not the solution to what ails America. It is an illustration of what ails America. Not because it is right-wing or because it is sometimes susceptible to crazed conspiracy theories, and not because of racism, but because of the movement’s self-indulgent premise that none of our challenges and difficulties are our own fault.

“Personal responsibility” has been a great conservative theme in recent decades, in response to the growth of the welfare state. It is a common theme among TPPs—even in response to health-care reform, as if losing your job and then getting cancer is something you shouldn’t have allowed to happen to yourself. But these days, conservatives far outdo liberals in excusing citizens from personal responsibility. To the TPPs, all of our problems are the fault of the government, and the government is a great “other,” a hideous monster over which we have no control. It spends our money and runs up vast deficits for mysterious reasons all its own. At bottom, this is a suspicion not of government but of democracy. After all, who elected this monster?

This kind of talk is doubly self-indulgent. First, it’s just not true. Second, it’s obviously untrue. The government’s main function these days is writing checks to old people. These checks allow people to retire and pursue avocations such as going to Tea Party rallies. This basic fact about the government is no great secret. In fact, it’s a huge cliché, probably available more than once in an average day’s newspaper. But the Tea Party Patriots feel free to ignore it and continue serving up rhetoric about “the audaciousness and arrogance of our government,” and calling for the elimination of the Federal Reserve Board or drastic restraints on the power of the Internal Revenue Service.

“I like what they’re saying. It’s common sense,” a random man-in-the-crowd told a Los Angeles Times reporter at a big Tea Party rally. Then he added, “They’ve got to focus on issues like keeping jobs here and lowering the cost of prescription drugs.” These, of course, are projects that can be conducted only by Big Government. If the Tea Party Patriots ever developed a coherent platform or agenda, they would lose half their supporters.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Orwell and Detroit


Chevrolet makes a bulbous SUV which they've named the Chevy "Tahoe."

Audacity? Well, yes, in one sense it seems to be staggering audacity to name this gaseous bag of pollution after a lake renown for its pristine waters.

However, I'm sure that the marketing mind who came up with this meant merely to connect the vehicle to the rugged, glorious, "off-road" outdoors that the "V" can more easily access if it's a "SUV."

Still, the irony of naming this bloatmobile after Lake Tahoe could not have been lost on the fine minds at Chevy. And I wonder: Did they express concern that there may be some backlash from environmentalists if they name their new gasbag "Tahoe"? Or upon perceiving the irony, while also appreciating the power of the name, did they just chuckle . . . and move on to other business?

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Financial System as a Casino Producing . . . Nothing Except Losers and Lost Possibilities


From Frank Rich column, 4.24.10, NYT:

"Even if the [financial] reform bill does bring stringent regulation to derivatives — a big if — that won’t rectify capitalism’s worst “innovation” in our own Gilded Age: the advent of exotic, speculative “investments” that have no redeeming social value and are instead concocted to facilitate gambling for its own sake. Such are the Goldman instruments of mass financial destruction that paid off for John Paulson. In 2007 alone, according to Gregory Zuckerman in his book “The Greatest Trade Ever,” Paulson’s personal take amounted to over $10 million a day, “more than the earnings of J. K. Rowling, Oprah Winfrey and Tiger Woods put together.” That “financial alchemy,” as Zuckerman calls it, explains why the finance sector’s share of domestic corporate profits, never higher than 16 percent until 1986, hit 41 percent in the last decade.
As many have said — though not many politicians in either party — something is fundamentally amiss in a financial culture that thrives on “products” that create nothing and produce nothing except new ways to make bigger bets and stack the deck in favor of the house. “At least in an actual casino, the damage is contained to gamblers,” wrote the financial journalist Roger Lowenstein in The [NY] Times Magazine last month. This catastrophe cost the economy eight million jobs."

Consider also Garry Kasparov, former chess World Champ, in the New York Review of Books a few months back. He reviewed "Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind." In his review he writes:

"Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors."

Sunday, May 9, 2010

Riding Bikes on the Freeway -- A Serialized Story


Daddy clearly took pleasure in turning to me with, “Daughter, why don’t you go ride your bike on the damn freeway?” and I surely loved hearing him say it whenever he and I both knew I was pestering him for that very reaction. And we did have a stretch of what would be Interstate 10 right outside of the little motel mama and daddy bought just inside the California border, but at the time it was just 4 unlined lanes of blazing white pavement, about 3 miles worth, unconnected on either side. A “patch” we called it. It was the connections mama and daddy waited for, but in the meantime, when it wasn’t too blazing sunhot or windy to leave grit on your tongue, that stretch of freeway was mine, all mine, or nearly so, for all the games I played during my back and forths on that bike.

I shared it with my brother and the few kids from the trailer park behind the motel, but I owned that road just because I rode it the most, but also because I talked about it the most.

“Won’t none of us be able to ride on patch when it gets all connected,” I intoned with authority more than once. “And then with all the business coming in, we’ll build TWO swimming pools and TWO more stories for the motel,” I’d continue, echoing what I’d heard from my daddy many times. Then, just to maintain my family’s aristocracy, I’d add, “And, you know, we’re gonna have to turn the trailer park into miniature golf course for the leisure of our guests.” It always disappointed me that that younger trailer kids didn’t fully understand the implication of the miniature golf plan.

That was my plan anyway.

I Stole the Class Milk Money: My History of Avarice -- Finding My Conscience


I discovered my conscience only after I became the milk money thief. My conscience, a flickering thing at the time, might have sparked some hesitation prior to my thievery, but a bicycle, just the glimmer of a bicycle, blotted out what little light my conscience may have cast upon the matter. It was pure arithmetic at the time: money = bike. Easy money = bike sooner. No algebraic variables to muddy to equation.

I was in the first grade, living on a cul de sac littered with boxy apartments buildings and inhabited by lots of kids, almost all of whom had bikes. I knew how to ride a bike and I was big enough to get a real bike, the kind with air in the tires, but my dad said I’d have to save up some of my allowance if I wanted a bike.

It was 1960 or thereabouts and I was allowed 25 cents each week. Gratis. I never remember having any chores. So it’s my parents’ fault that I never learned to earn and become righteous. For the bike, I had to save 10 bucks. I don’t know if I knew that meant 40 weeks of not spending so much as a penny at the penny candy store up the hill, but I did know two things: 10 bucks was more money than I could imagine and I’d never save up that much. And even if I could save it, winter was coming soon and there’d by no bike riding in winter. Cold. Wet.

It gnawed at little me. I had no imagination for solutions. Gnawing frustration visited, often in the form of tantrums and tears, when I saw other kids riding their bikes away, it seemed, from me, and off into a land of play for bigger boys. Sometimes they’d race around the cul de sac, around and around, passing my dejected countenance as I begged for a turn on this boy’s bike or that boy’s bike. But I knew that if I had a bike, no one but me would ride it because I wouldn’t be able to bear getting off it.

Usually, they just rode off, emptying the cul de sac of all the fun, leaving me there wondering what to do.

Bike!
Want bike!



Then one day, a wondrous thing happened. We were in our classroom, doing whatever first graders did in those days, and it started to snow. A rarity in Mississippi. Snow, quiet snow, in flakes yards apart, falling so quietly, like ash from the summer swamp burns, but each flake white as, well . . . snow. Snow! Falling, but slowly. Everywhere. So slowly. Had you ever seen anything fall so slowly and quietly? Sure, it didn’t stick, but . . . it’s snowing in Mississippi in November. Snow!

I wrestled with myself because it was surely beautiful, but it was also a bad sign. Winter in Mississippi didn’t burden us with snow, but our winters were cold, wet and windy – not bike riding weather – and snow, as transfixed as I was by its loveliness, meant winter. Now my gnawing bike anger was ruining even my ability to appreciate this wintry miracle outside.

All the kids ran to the window to draw and yell. “Can we go get a bunch?!!?” “What’s it taste like?” “Can we get some and draw ‘em?” “Will we be able to get home?” The teacher, Miss Mary, seemed as delighted as we were and I remember her laughing in a way that seemed so adult as if to say, “Well, I’ll be . . . .” She walked out of the classroom laughing. That I remember well.

Because that’s exactly when I saw the milk money. Money collected once a week from all the kids to buy the week’s supply of milk and graham crackers. Just sitting there in a big envelope. All the kids were at the window. The teacher gone. Gotta be 10 bucks in that fat envelope.

I took it. Snuck it into my little shirt and then into my satchel.

Later that day, walking home, I opened the envelope. There, the first bill I took, was a 10 dollar bill. I put that bill in my pocket and the envelope back into the satchel and I went home, presented it to my mother and said, “Let’s talk bike.” Or something like that.

“Where did you get this, Gregory?” my mother asked.

“Found it on the street.”

“You found it on the street?”

“That’s right.”

Well, I seem to recall she had a look on her face like she’d just thought of a new way to serve a chicken. A look of discovery and planning all at the same time.

“C’mon, lemme read you a story,” she said.

Sounded good to me. Life was all good now. Except it wasn’t all good because I felt as if a connection to my mother was strained to breaking. I didn’t feel badly about taking the money – didn’t give it a second thought yet! – but lying to my mom made my feel lonely somehow.

I sat next to her on that ratty brown sectional sofa and sunk as deeply into it as a little boy could while leaning, almost pushing, just as heavily into my mother’s right arm, just to reestablish or confirm a connection.

How I wish I could remember what she was reading. How I wish I could ask her. But she’s gone now and it was some 43 years ago. Doesn’t matter because I do remember not paying much attention to the story. Everything in me was a like a darkening sky troubled with swirling swamp ashes blown by a wind gusting this way and that, a wind that seems to sweep the air away making it hard to breathe. I felt born away from my own mother. I was aloft, torn away from a solid foundation and I began to sob. I pushed my head into something surely solid, my mother and everything motherly about her, and I sobbed.

At first, she just kept reading like she didn’t notice. Or like it was expected. “Well, now, what is upsetting you so?” she finally asked.

It relieved me, it settled me just to have the opportunity to tell her and to clear the skies in my heart. “Mom,” I sobbed. “I took that money at school.”

And that’s the day, without having a word for it . . . that’s the day I became acquainted with my conscience.

My mom presented it to me without a word and waited for me to discover and make use of it.