Within a year of pot legalization going into effect in Washington and Colorado, the rate of DEA raids in those two states will, at least, double.
The DOJ/DEA's rationale will be interstate marijuana trafficking.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Monday, October 24, 2011
Debit Card Fees
I wish I had seen this before the Facebook discussion with a left-liberal:
Jump to 1:17:05
In fact, watch the whole thing.
Richard Epstein destroys a disingenuous and completely nonsensical George Soros.
Like a Boss.
Jump to 1:17:05
In fact, watch the whole thing.
Richard Epstein destroys a disingenuous and completely nonsensical George Soros.
Like a Boss.
Friday, October 21, 2011
Facebook Conversation With A Left-Liberal: Gender Discrimination
This is definitely not my most sophisticated argument, and this is definitely not a topic that I have a major interest in, but here goes:
Left-Liberal:
Left-Liberal:
I often feel like I would have more opportunity if I were a man. If you think gender has nothing to do with the way people treat you in a professional environment you are seriously smoking crack, or have never worked in a "suit and tie" environment. Really.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Silly Left-Liberal Facebook Wall Post *UPDATED*
It turned into a Facebook conversation:
Left-Liberal 1:
Left-Liberal 2:
Left-Liberal 1:
I'm getting really tired of hearing regular, middle class people who disagree with the Occupy Wall Street movement say that they are not part of "the 99%." Sorry to break it to you, but if you make less than ~$400K per year, you're part of the 99%. And most likely, you always will be, regardless of how hard you work throughout your life. Angry yet?*UPDATED*
Left-Liberal 2:
I have an acquaintance that works at McDonalds that is FURIOUS about the estate tax...Truly amazing isn't it??Random Person:
I remember when I was mad about being poor, but then I got rich. Later, poor kids!Non Left-Liberal 1:
I may be part of the 99% from a financial standpoint, but that does not mean I'm part of the 99% from an ideological standpoint.Non Left-Liberal 2:
Maybe in portland thats an accurate expectation if people, but the majority of americans still believe that their efforts can get them where they wish. If these folks want to effect real change, they need to become stockholders in these companies they are so incensed over, them organize and vote the bums out with all their fellow angry people. But i forget that the 99 never has enough money to get into the stock market...unless theres a huge loss they can blame on a company then the 99's entire life savings was in the market...
And the idea that folks could get mad over having 40 % of their life savings taken away upon death is not truly amazing. Whats shocking is that folks can think thats kosher.Left-Liberal 1:
@Non Left-Liberal 1- rather than proclaim that you're not part of the 99%, you all should proclaim, "I vote against my own interests!"Left-Liberal 1:
@Non Left-Liberal 2 - people can believe whatever they want, but in this case they are deluding themselves. Also, I want to clarify something. I realized right after I posted my comment that I shouldn't have ended it with "Angry yet?" because that implies that this is simply about rich vs. poor. This is NOT about wealth alone; it's about the disproportionate amount of POWER and INFLUENCE that the wealthy possess in this country. We do not hate wealth in and of itself. On the contrary, we hate poverty! By the way, a lot of people seem to think that the protesters are just an angry mob of poor people, which is far from true. 99% means 99%.Let's break it down, shall we?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
NPR Being Silly: Drug Shortages
Here's the article
Here's the transcript
So, anyways, I was listening to some NPR yesterday(mainly, because getting angry is the best way for me to get up in the morning) and there was a story about drug shortages throughout the nation. It followed the NPR story template about SOME BAD THING. It starts off with a human face(voice) on the situation which is heartrending and/or inspiring that is caused by SOME BAD THING, then, ostensibly, delves into the underlying reasons why SOME BAD THING happens, and then explains ways people are trying to fix SOME BAD THING.
NPR is, many times, very wrong. There are two things that really stuck out with their wrong-ness:
Here's the transcript
So, anyways, I was listening to some NPR yesterday(mainly, because getting angry is the best way for me to get up in the morning) and there was a story about drug shortages throughout the nation. It followed the NPR story template about SOME BAD THING. It starts off with a human face(voice) on the situation which is heartrending and/or inspiring that is caused by SOME BAD THING, then, ostensibly, delves into the underlying reasons why SOME BAD THING happens, and then explains ways people are trying to fix SOME BAD THING.
NPR is, many times, very wrong. There are two things that really stuck out with their wrong-ness:
Friday, September 30, 2011
Facebook Conversation With A Left-Liberal: Debit-Card Fees Edition
Left-Liberal 1 links this on their wall with the following comment:
"The banks are revolting because they can no longer afford to pay their top executives $20 million per year."
Me:
"Banking institutions of all sizes are having to re-examine fees and services due to Dodd-Frank (especially the Durbin amendment).
Examples: http://www.forbes.com/site
http://www.cutimes.com/201
i know that the plural form of anecdote is "not data" but when it comes to my CU, they've raised a couple of fees for certain services and did away with a few rewards programs, and i can assure you that no one there makes 20 mil.
the economics is very clear on this issue, a firm will find a way to control for costs and raise revenue so as to keep its profit margin.
no normative statments made, just positive"
Random Person:
"Left-Liberal 1 - I'm not trying to be argumentative but there is something I really don't understand perhaps you or one of your fb friends could enlighten me. People appear to get upset with executives at various corporations making millions of dollars a year, but don't seem the least bit upset when entertainers and sports figures make millions of dollars of year."
Left-Liberal 2:
"I actually like the up front fees better than per transaction. The per transaction was underhanded and disclosed in the fine print on your agreement, but in the statement you wouldn't notice that the cost of a particular item was 44 cents higher on your bank statement than on your receipt. The real question is - do they really need to charge those fees to make up actual costs or are they just taking profit because they can? I don't know what the cost structure is for debit card networks, so I don't know the answer. But, if it costs them .10 and they charge .44, that's a hefty markup for a bank and that certainly does figure into the $20m bonuses."
Left-Liberal 2:
"@Random Guy - a couple reasons leap to mind. First, and I think most importantly for most people, A-Rod didn't wreck the economy and then borrow money from me to save himself. In fact, A-Rod's salary has exactly zero economic effect on me personally, unless I buy Yankee tickets, which I can easily choose not to do without suffering too much. However, if banks pursue reckless behavior so that their CEO can take home more money than he needs, that can have serious consequences for the entire country. Thus, bank executive pay *should* be scrutinized. I actually work for Large Financial Institution, and we think that scrutinization is important enough that we were the first ones to institute clawback provisions for our executive bonuses so that if short term gains turn into long term losses, they have to pay back their previous bonuses. Second, there is a fairly direct connection between the performance of the players on the field and the revenue the team receives. Winning puts butts in seats. Ask the Yankees. But, there is a large body of studies that show that a CEO has very little effect on the actual revenues of the firm. They should not be making 400 times the average worker in their firm because they don't actually contribute 400 times the value to the firm. Instead, they appropriate the value others create because they are usually in a position to do so. This is true for any large corporation, not just banks. In the end, I believe the runaway executive pay we're seeing in America hurts the firm, the shareholders, and the economy, because it creates an atmosphere of heads I win, tails everyone else loses because I've got a golden parachute. If you're going to be indignant about sports salaries, you should be asking what the OWNERS have done to deserve theirs, because they make way more than the players."
Me:
"@Left-Liberal 2 - there was never a higher cost for debit card purchases. the .44 average was charged to the merchant.
re: CEOs effect on firm - what of the superstar effect? there are plenty of studies such as those done by rosen, boldrin and levine, and others that show, in an increasingly interconnected world with smaller transaction costs, miniscule differences between talent affect huge differences in firm performance. the larger the market, the larger the returns to specialization. if youre speaking of the firm v firm performance as not showing any net benefit, then you have to look at the game theoretical/red queen argument that all sides are striving to outdo the other and hiring marginally better and more expensive people. if one firm stopped, theyd perish
Re: a-rod's salary - the steinbrenners are able to pay his salary due, partly, to rent-seeking. if your city and state gives billionaires millions(in land, tax exemptions, whatever) to build a stadium, it does affect you."
Left-Liberal 1:
"You all can bicker amongst yourselves, but here's how I see it. We provide banks a service by lending them our money. (It's worth noting that these are mostly interest-free loans.) They took our money, gambled with it, and lost. Meanwhile, their CEOs and other top executives were taking home millions (in some cases tens of millions) each year. Now, in an effort to recoup lost profits, they're charging us - their lenders - for accessing our money via debit card purchases. Of course I resent those greedy bastards! As for the point about movie stars and athletes also being multimillionaires... I don't think they deserve it, either. I don't think ANYONE deserves that kind of wealth."
Let's break it down, shall we?
You all can bicker amongst yourselves[Nice condescension], but here's how I see it[Truth to Power]. We provide banks a service by lending them our money[Sorta, but not really. They're offering us a service by keeping our money secure, offering options of payment to third parties that would otherwise not be as safe/reliable/convenient]. (It's worth noting that these are mostly interest-free loans[Use internet banks or credit unions, they'll give you better rates. Why use big banks? Generally, for the services they provide other than the interest earned on deposits, such as credit cards, ubiquity of ATMs, and services only available due to economies of scale].) They took our money, gambled with it, and lost[The real point you should be making is that they gambled, lost, and then asked the federal govt for a bailout.]. Meanwhile, their CEOs and other top executives were taking home millions (in some cases tens of millions) each year[Please, actually read my earlier comment on the theoretical underpinnings of why they get paid so much]. Now, in an effort to recoup lost profits, they're charging us[The reason they're going to be charging for debit card usage is because now they are no longer able to charge the merchants what they had been. That's one major point you're missing, the Durbin amendment is political payola to the big retailers. If you hate commerce and big business so much, what about the retailers lobbying for an amendment that anyone with just a modicum of economic understanding knew was going to result in some change of service and/or fees on the part of banks?] - their lenders - for accessing our money via debit card purchases[Don't use a debit card at point-of-sale; use cash. ATM usage at your bank is free. Cash is less secure, and less convenient, but remember, debit card usage is a service]. Of course I resent those greedy bastards![I resent them, as well, but you really should know why it's appropriate to resent them] As for the point about movie stars and athletes also being multimillionaires... I don't think they deserve it, either. I don't think ANYONE deserves that kind of wealth.[You're now arguing aesthetics. I don't like pleated khakis, and I don't think ANYONE should wear them.]
"The banks are revolting because they can no longer afford to pay their top executives $20 million per year."
Me:
"Banking institutions of all sizes are having to re-examine fees and services due to Dodd-Frank (especially the Durbin amendment).
Examples: http://www.forbes.com/site
http://www.cutimes.com/201
i know that the plural form of anecdote is "not data" but when it comes to my CU, they've raised a couple of fees for certain services and did away with a few rewards programs, and i can assure you that no one there makes 20 mil.
the economics is very clear on this issue, a firm will find a way to control for costs and raise revenue so as to keep its profit margin.
no normative statments made, just positive"
Random Person:
"Left-Liberal 1 - I'm not trying to be argumentative but there is something I really don't understand perhaps you or one of your fb friends could enlighten me. People appear to get upset with executives at various corporations making millions of dollars a year, but don't seem the least bit upset when entertainers and sports figures make millions of dollars of year."
Left-Liberal 2:
"I actually like the up front fees better than per transaction. The per transaction was underhanded and disclosed in the fine print on your agreement, but in the statement you wouldn't notice that the cost of a particular item was 44 cents higher on your bank statement than on your receipt. The real question is - do they really need to charge those fees to make up actual costs or are they just taking profit because they can? I don't know what the cost structure is for debit card networks, so I don't know the answer. But, if it costs them .10 and they charge .44, that's a hefty markup for a bank and that certainly does figure into the $20m bonuses."
Left-Liberal 2:
"@Random Guy - a couple reasons leap to mind. First, and I think most importantly for most people, A-Rod didn't wreck the economy and then borrow money from me to save himself. In fact, A-Rod's salary has exactly zero economic effect on me personally, unless I buy Yankee tickets, which I can easily choose not to do without suffering too much. However, if banks pursue reckless behavior so that their CEO can take home more money than he needs, that can have serious consequences for the entire country. Thus, bank executive pay *should* be scrutinized. I actually work for Large Financial Institution, and we think that scrutinization is important enough that we were the first ones to institute clawback provisions for our executive bonuses so that if short term gains turn into long term losses, they have to pay back their previous bonuses. Second, there is a fairly direct connection between the performance of the players on the field and the revenue the team receives. Winning puts butts in seats. Ask the Yankees. But, there is a large body of studies that show that a CEO has very little effect on the actual revenues of the firm. They should not be making 400 times the average worker in their firm because they don't actually contribute 400 times the value to the firm. Instead, they appropriate the value others create because they are usually in a position to do so. This is true for any large corporation, not just banks. In the end, I believe the runaway executive pay we're seeing in America hurts the firm, the shareholders, and the economy, because it creates an atmosphere of heads I win, tails everyone else loses because I've got a golden parachute. If you're going to be indignant about sports salaries, you should be asking what the OWNERS have done to deserve theirs, because they make way more than the players."
Me:
"@Left-Liberal 2 - there was never a higher cost for debit card purchases. the .44 average was charged to the merchant.
re: CEOs effect on firm - what of the superstar effect? there are plenty of studies such as those done by rosen, boldrin and levine, and others that show, in an increasingly interconnected world with smaller transaction costs, miniscule differences between talent affect huge differences in firm performance. the larger the market, the larger the returns to specialization. if youre speaking of the firm v firm performance as not showing any net benefit, then you have to look at the game theoretical/red queen argument that all sides are striving to outdo the other and hiring marginally better and more expensive people. if one firm stopped, theyd perish
Re: a-rod's salary - the steinbrenners are able to pay his salary due, partly, to rent-seeking. if your city and state gives billionaires millions(in land, tax exemptions, whatever) to build a stadium, it does affect you."
Left-Liberal 1:
"You all can bicker amongst yourselves, but here's how I see it. We provide banks a service by lending them our money. (It's worth noting that these are mostly interest-free loans.) They took our money, gambled with it, and lost. Meanwhile, their CEOs and other top executives were taking home millions (in some cases tens of millions) each year. Now, in an effort to recoup lost profits, they're charging us - their lenders - for accessing our money via debit card purchases. Of course I resent those greedy bastards! As for the point about movie stars and athletes also being multimillionaires... I don't think they deserve it, either. I don't think ANYONE deserves that kind of wealth."
Let's break it down, shall we?
You all can bicker amongst yourselves[Nice condescension], but here's how I see it[Truth to Power]. We provide banks a service by lending them our money[Sorta, but not really. They're offering us a service by keeping our money secure, offering options of payment to third parties that would otherwise not be as safe/reliable/convenient]. (It's worth noting that these are mostly interest-free loans[Use internet banks or credit unions, they'll give you better rates. Why use big banks? Generally, for the services they provide other than the interest earned on deposits, such as credit cards, ubiquity of ATMs, and services only available due to economies of scale].) They took our money, gambled with it, and lost[The real point you should be making is that they gambled, lost, and then asked the federal govt for a bailout.]. Meanwhile, their CEOs and other top executives were taking home millions (in some cases tens of millions) each year[Please, actually read my earlier comment on the theoretical underpinnings of why they get paid so much]. Now, in an effort to recoup lost profits, they're charging us[The reason they're going to be charging for debit card usage is because now they are no longer able to charge the merchants what they had been. That's one major point you're missing, the Durbin amendment is political payola to the big retailers. If you hate commerce and big business so much, what about the retailers lobbying for an amendment that anyone with just a modicum of economic understanding knew was going to result in some change of service and/or fees on the part of banks?] - their lenders - for accessing our money via debit card purchases[Don't use a debit card at point-of-sale; use cash. ATM usage at your bank is free. Cash is less secure, and less convenient, but remember, debit card usage is a service]. Of course I resent those greedy bastards![I resent them, as well, but you really should know why it's appropriate to resent them] As for the point about movie stars and athletes also being multimillionaires... I don't think they deserve it, either. I don't think ANYONE deserves that kind of wealth.[You're now arguing aesthetics. I don't like pleated khakis, and I don't think ANYONE should wear them.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)